1781. EMPSON'S CASE. (1) See now the person (1), of which fact there was not sufficient evidence in the present case; and THE JURY accordingly found the prisoner Not Guilty. 43 Geo. III. c. 58. that if any person shall maliciously shoot at, or present, point, or level any kind of loaded fire-arms at another, and attempt by drawing a trigger or in any other manner to discharge the same, at or against any other person with intent to murder, rob, maim, disfigure or disable; or to do some other grievous bodily harm, &c. &c. he shall be guilty of felony without clergy. CASE CXIII. Uttering a forged order for the payment of mo THE KING against JOHN SHEPPARD. AT the Old Bailey in September Session 1781, John Sheppard was tried before MR. JUSTICE ASHHURST, for uttering the following order for payment of money, knowing it to be false represen- forged, with intention to defraud James Elliot : ney under a tation, is evidence of knowing it to be forged. $. C. 2 East, 967. GREEN-STREET, 31st July 1781. "SIRS, Pray Pay to Mr. John Atkins, or bearer, six pounds "six shillings, value received. Yours, &c. "H. TURNER." (a) "TO MESSRS. BROWN, COLLINSON, & Co. Lombard Street. THE following facts appeared in evidence: THE PROSECUTOR was a silversmith; and the prisoner having looked out several goods at his shop to the amount of six guineas, pulled out his purse, as if going to pay for them, saying, "I believe I have not cash enough about me, but "here is a draft on a banker, which is the same thing as "money; for it will be paid when presented." He accordingly laid the draft on the counter, and desired to see some (a) It seems that one of the objections made in this case was that it ought to have been laid to be a Bill of Exchange, according to the case of Grant v. Vaughan; but in Michaelmas Term 1781, the Judges were unanimously of opinion that it was properly laid : and it was observed that the indictment and draft were the same as in Lockett's Case, ante, 94, where all the Judges held the conviction proper, and that every Bill of Exchange seemed to be an order for payment of money, though not vice versa, 2 East, 944. See also Willoughby's case to the same effect, 2 East Rep. 581. and 2 East, C. L. 944. silver spurs; but the prosecutor not having any of the kind which he described, the prisoner said, "Then you must "send me a pair." Mr. Elliot looked at the draft as it lay on the counter, and then taking his order-book, and imagining the draft to be the prisoner's draft, and the prisoner's name to be the same as that in which the draft was signed, he wrote, "H. Turner, Esq." The prisoner looked over him, and desired him to add, "Junior, Noah's Row, Hamp"ton Court," and then went away. It appeared that no person of the name of H. Turner kept cash at Brown and Collinson's, or lived in Green-street; nor could such a place as Noah's Row, or such a person as H. Turner, jun. be found at Hampton Court. But Mr. Elliot the prosecutor said, that as the sum was small, and the prisoner's appearance genteel, and believing the draft which was on a house he knew, to be the prisoner's draft, he gave credit to the prisoner and not to the draft. THE Jury found the prisoner Guilty; and he received judgment of death: but the execution of the sentence was respited, on a doubt whether as Elliot had sworn that he gave credit to the prisoner, and not to the draft, it could amount to the crime of forgery. IN January Session 1782 the prisoner was put to the bar, and informed by MR. RECORDER, That the TWELVE JUDGES were unanimously of opinion, that the conviction was legal, for it was a false instrument, not drawn by any such person as it purported to be, and the using a fictitious name was only for the purpose of deceiving. THE Prisoner however received a conditional pardon, in consideration of the long confinement he had suffered; and he was sentenced under the statute 19 Geo. III. c. 74. s. 28. to raise gravel for three years on the river Thames. 1781. SHEPPARD'S R. v. Locket, ante, page 94, case 59. R. v. Dunn, ante, page 57, case 32. 1781. CASE CXIV. If a robber take a purse of money from a person, and THE KING against Peat. OLD-BAILEY December Session 1781, the prisoner was indicted before MR. BARON HOTHAM, present MR. JUSTICE WILLES, for a highway robbery on Richard Downe, Esq. by putting him in corporal fear and danger of his life, and taking ately, saying, from his person a silk purse, value three-pence, and twentyIf you value three shillings in monies numbered. restore it to him immedi 66 your purse take it back and give me the THE prisoner on horseback stopped Mr. Downe's carriage contents," but on Finchley Common, and demanded his money. Mr. Downe is apprehended before gave him his purse. The prisoner took it, but immediately returned it again to Mr. Downe, saying, "If you value your the money is delivered to him, yet the crime is completed. S. C. 2 East, 557. 1 Hale 533, 70. 3 Inst. 60, 69. 1 Hawk. 147. 66 purse you will please to take it back, and give me the contents of it." Mr. Downe received it back, but while he was taking out the money, and before he had re-delivered the purse to the prisoner, Mr. Downe's servant jumped from behind the carriage and secured the prisoner. A DOUBT arose, Whether, as robbery is only an aggravated species of larceny, there was a sufficient asportation in this case to constitute the offence? BUT THE COURT held, that although the prosecutor did not eventually lose either his purse or his money, yet as the prisoner had in fact demanded his money, and under the impulse of that threat and demand the property had been once taken from the prosecutor by the prisoner, it was in strictness of law a sufficient taking to complete the offence, although the prisoner's possession had continued for an instant only (a). (a) A. requires B. to deliver his purse, and he delivers it accordingly; but A. finding only two shillings in it, gives him it again, yet this is a taking by robbery. Cromp. 34. Dalt. c. 153. p. 492. 1 Hale, 533. For he who has once actually completed the offence, by taking the goods of another, in such a manner into his possession, cannot afterwards purge it by any re-delivery. Sum. 70. 3 Inst. 60. 1 Hawk. P. C. 147. The outrage offered to the rights of society does not vary in its nature, because it is ineffectual in its consequences, Eden's P. P. L. 286; and the continuance of the property in the possession of the robber, is not required by law. 3 Inst. 69. See also Staund. 27. THE Jury accordingly found the prisoner Guilty of the highway robbery; but he afterwards received a pardon on condition of being transported to Nova Scotia for seven years, which condition he accepted in the month of July 1783, and was transported accordingly; but in July Session 1784, he was tried for being found at large without any lawful excuse before his time had expired; but as no person could prove that he was the identical man who had been convicted of robbing Mr. Downe, he was found Not Guilty. 1781. PEAT'S CASE. 1782. THE KING against JOHN HEVEY. AT the Old Bailey in January Session 1782, John Hevey was indicted on the statute 2 Geo. II. c. 25. before MR. JUSTICE ASHHURST, for forging an indorsement on the back of a bill of exchange, in the name of " B. M'Carty," with intent to defraud William Masters and Edward Beauchamp, against the statute. THERE was a second count, for uttering and publishing a forged indorsement in the name of "B. M'Carty,” with the like intention, against the statute. "No. 59. £. 30: 00: 0. BATH BANK, Nov. 19, 1781. "THIRTY-ONE days after sight, pay Mr. Barnard M'Carty or order, Thirty Pounds, Value received, for Smith, Moore, and Co.. "To Rich. Beatty and Co. "No. 19, Gt. St. Helen's, London." "JER. CONNELL." (Acc. R. B. and Co.) It appeared in evidence, that the prisoner, by the name of John Hevey, had procured the copper-plate to be engraved from which the skeleton of the bill in question had been printed. In the month of November 1781, the prisoner went to the shop of the prosecutors, who were pawnbrokers in Holborn, bargained for a gold watch at the price of eighteen CASE CXV. To utter a bill of exchange under a false assertion of being the person to whom it able, and by was made pay whom it had been indorsed, is a misdemea nor. S. C. 2 East, pard's Case, case 113. Dougl. 300. HEVEY'S 1782. guineas, and offered the BATH BANK BILL above described in payment. Mr. Beauchamp examined the bill, and shewing the indorsement to the prisoner, asked him if his name was McCarty. The prisoner replied, "Yes, Sir, it is. You "have no occasion to be afraid, it is better than a note of "the Bank of England; it is a very good bill, and I have "indorsed it." Mr. Beauchamp, however, refused to take it, until he had sent his servant with it into Great St. Helen's, to know whether the acceptance Richard Beatty and Co. was genuine. The servant took the bill according to the directions, and received information from a gentleman who answered to the name of Beatty, that it was a good bill, and would be regularly paid when due. In consequence of this information, the prosecutor let the prisoner have the watch, gave him 11. 2s. in exchange, and a bill of parcels, with a receipt in the name of M'Carty for the 181. 18s. Od. The bill was not paid, nor were there any such persons as Smith, Moore, and Co. to be found at Bath. The prisoner and Beatty were apprehended, and committed for the supposed forgery. In the prisoner's custody were found a number of notes, of different dates and sums, indorsed in the name of "B. M'Carty;" but it was positively sworn, that these indorsements, as well as that on the back of the bill in question, were in the hand-writing of one Barnard McCarty, who lived in St. Giles's, and had absconded. It was also proved that the prisoner's real name was John Hevey. THE learned Judge told the Jury that if they were of opinion that there was no such person as Barnard McCarty, or that the indorsement was not his hand-writing, they must find the prisoner guilty; but that if they were satisfied that such a person existed, and that he had written the indorsement, yet if they were of opinion that the prisoner was not that person, but had passed himself off on the prosecutor as such, they should find him Guilty, and the case should be reserved for the opinion of the Judges, whether under all the circumstances it amounted to the crime of forgery. The Jury found"That the indorsement B. M'CARTY was in the |