"hand-writing of a person of that name; but that John "Hevey, the prisoner at the bar, was not the man, but that "he had passed himself upon the prosecutor Mr. Beauchamp "as being B. McCarty the indorser," at the time he tendered the bill in payment. THE question was therefore referred, Whether, if a man produce the real signature of a person existing, purporting to be the indorsement of such person, and falsely declare that he is the identical person whose indorsement it purports to be, it amounts in point of law to the offence of forgery? 1782. HEVEY'S CASE. Skynner, B. Ashhurst, J. On the first day of Hilary Term 1782, eleven of the JUDGES Lord Mansconferred upon this case; and at the Old Bailey in February field. Lord Lough. Session following, MR. JUSTICE GOULD, after stating the borough. circumstances of the case as above described, delivered the Lord C. B. opinion of the Judges to the following effect. The question Gould, J. referred to the opinion of the Judges was, whether this Willes, J. amounted to the crime of forgery, or to the crime of uttering this Bill knowing it to be forged. Upon the first day of Hilary Term eleven Judges assembled to consider this case, and they are of opinion that in point of law, the prisoner is not guilty of the offence charged upon him by this indictment. The statute 2 Geo. II. c. 25. enacts "That if any person shall falsely make, forge or counterfeit, or cause or "procure to be falsely made, forged or counterfeited, or wil lingly act, or assist in the false making, forging or coun"terfeiting any deed, will, testament, bond, writing obli 66 gatory, Bill of Exchange, promissory note for payment of "money, indorsement or assignment of any Bill of Exchange "or promissory note for payment of money, &c. with in"tention to defraud any person whatsoever, or shall utter " or publish as true, any false, forged or counterfeited deed, "&c. with intention to defraud any person, knowing the "same to be false, forged or counterfeited, then every such. person, &c. shall be deemed guilty of felony without be"nefit of clergy." There must therefore be a false making of some of the instruments mentioned in the Act, to constitute the crime of forgery; but in the present case the Jury 66 Heath, J. Eyre, B. Hotham, B. 1782. HEVEY'S CASE. were satisfied that in fact there was such a man as Barnard McCarty, and that the name B. M'Carty upon the bill was of the hand-writing of that M'Carty. This therefore is not what the indictment charges it to be, a false instrument. THE prisoner however was detained, and at the same Session John Hevey and Richard Beatty were indicted, with Barnard McCarty, for the conspiracy to defraud, and were convicted. CASE CXVI. If a bill purporting to be accepted by J.H.be shewn to him, and he declares it to be a good bill, that is sufficient proof that he wrote the acceptance. THE KING against HEVEY, BEATTY AND M'CARTY. AT the Old Bailey in February Session 1782, John Hevey, Richard Beatty, and Barnard McCarty were indicted before JAMES ADAIR, Esq. Serjeant at Law and Recorder of the City of London, for that they on the 26th of November, 1781, did fraudulently and unlawfully confederate, conspire, and agree that Richard Beatty should write his acceptance to a certain paper-writing, purporting to be a bill of exchange, the tenor of which is as follows; that is to say, "No. 64.-£20. BATH BANK, Nov. 19, 1781. "THIRTY-ONE days after sight pay Mr. Barnard McCarty, "or order, Twenty Pounds, value received, "For Smith, Moore, and Co. "To Richard Beatty, and Co. 66 JER. CONNELL.” "No. 19, Great St. Helen's, London." In order that John Hevey might by such acceptance, and by the name of B. M'Carty being indorsed thereon, negotiate the said paper-writing as a good bill of exchange, truly drawn at Bath by one Jer. Connell for Smith, Moore and Co. as partners in the business of Bankers under the style of Bath Bank, as persons well known to them the said, &c. and thereby fraudulently to obtain from the King's subjects, goods and monies that Richard Beatty, in pursuance of such conspiracy and agreement, did fraudulently and unlawfully write his acceptance to the said paper-writing, to the tenor following, "accepted, 20 Nov. 81, R. B." well knowing the firm 1782. HEVEY, BEATTY AND CASE. of Smith, Moore and Co. to be fictitious: that the said Barnard M'Carty, well knowing the same to be fictitious, wrote the name Barnard M'Carty upon the back of the said bill of exchange; and that the said John Hevey, in pursuance of M'CARTY'S such fraudulent conspiracy, did utter and publish the said paper-writing, so purporting to be a bill of exchange, to Samuel Read the younger, as and for a good bill of exchange truly drawn, &c. and accepted by the said Richard Beatty, as a person able to pay the said twenty pounds, in order to negotiate the same to Samuel Read the elder, and by means thereof he did fraudulently obtain and got into his possession, one gold watch of the value of 127. 12s. and seven pounds, and eight shillings in money, whereas in truth at the time of drawing, accepting and uttering the said bill, there were no such persons as Smith, Moore and Co. in the business of bankers at Bath, and the said Richard Beatty was not of sufficient ability to pay the said twenty pounds, they the said John Hevey, Richard Beatty, and Barnard M'Carty well knowing the same, &c. whereby the said John Hevey, Richard Beatty, and Barnard M'Carty, he the said Samuel Read the elder, of his goods and monies did deceive, cheat, and defraud, against the peace of our Lord the King, his Crown and Dignity. IN the month of June 1781, the prisoners Richard Beatty and Barnard McCarty executed articles of copartnership between each other, which were witnessed by the other prisoner John Hevey, and on the ensuing day John Hevey and Barnard M'Carty executed other articles of copartnership between each other, which were witnessed by Richard Beatty. By these articles, which were dated 24 September 1781, it was agreed that they should become partners in business, but without specifying of what kind it should be; that they proposed to begin at No. 19, Great St. Helen's in Bishopsgate Street; and that upon any disagreement each should be at liberty immediately to dissolve the connection. In consequence of these agreements, one counting-house was taken at No. 19, Great St. Helen's, on the door of which was placed a brass-plate with the words "Beatty and Co." inscribed 1782. BEATTY AND CASE. thereon, and another counting-house in Westgate Street, Bath, under the firm of Smith, Moore and Co. at which HEVEY, M'Carty and Hevey occasionally attended. In the middle of M'CARTY'S July 1781, Hevey procured a plate to be engraved from which the printed part of the bill stated in the indictment had been impressed, and it was proved that five hundred of the same impression had been struck off from the plate, and that by these means they had procured credit from several persons for rum, brandy, watches, and other articles of merchandise to a very considerable amount. On Tuesday, 27 November 1781, John Hevey went to the house of Mr. Samuel Read, a watch-maker in Fetter Lane, and desired to see some gold watches, which he pretended to want for exportation. Mr. Read's son shewed him several, out of which he chose one of the value of twelve guineas, and produced the bill, stated in the indictment, to pay for it. During this time Mr. Read himself came in, and on looking at the bill, hesitated to take it. Upon which Hevey said, " It is a good bill; if you have "the least doubt about it, you may send to the acceptor and "be satisfied." Mr. Read's son accordingly went with Hevey to the counting-house at No. 19, Great St. Helen's, where he saw the prisoner Richard Beatty surrounded with books and papers and acting like a clerk in the midst of business. The young man shewed Beatty the bill, with the acceptance on it, and asked him if it was a good one, and Beatty after looking at it for some time, returned it saying, " It is a very 66 good bill; a very good bill." The young man accordingly gave Hevey, who was waiting in the street, the gold watch, which he had carried with him, and 77. 8s. the difference, as soon as he came out. Before the bill became due, all the parties to the contract had run away, but they were soon afterwards apprehended, when it appeared that Beatty had been a ballast-heaver by business; that Hevey was an insolvent debtor, who had been liberated from the King's Bench Prison by the rioters in the year 1780; and that McCarty was a poor man, who had before resided in St. Giles's, and had absconded. 66 1782. HEVEY, BEATTY AND AFTER the prisoners had been apprehended and examined before the sitting alderman, several letters which were directed to Beatty and Co. No. 19, Great St. Helen's," were intercepted at the Post-Office, and were attempted to be given in M'CARTY'S evidence against the prisoners at the trial; but the Court said that as they had never been in the custody of the prisoners, have never or any way adopted by them, they were inadmissible. CASE. Letters which been in the custody of a not be read in against him. THE prisoners' Counsel then objected, that as the indict- prisoner, canment distinctly and substantially charged that Richard Beatty evidence had written his acceptance of this bill, it was necessary that the fact of its being his hand-writing, ought to have been distinctly and substantially proved. THE COUNSEL for the prosecution contended, that as Beatty was the person to whom this bill had been shewn, his having said that it was a good bill and would be paid when due, was an acknowledgement that he had accepted the bill. THE COURT said that there was no doubt but that what Beatty had said was in itself a good acceptance of the bill, and that if it had been charged in the indictment to have been so accepted, or if it had charged, "that the bill so uttered "by Hevey, the said Richard Beatty did fraudulently declare "was a good bill, upon the bill being presented to him, so "purporting to be accepted by the said Richard Beatty," it would have been sufficient evidence of that fact, but that in the present case the acceptance was charged to have been by writing, and not by parol, and, if an indictment states distinct substantial facts, they must be proved, and cannot be treated as surplusage, although perhaps they were not essentially necessary to make out the crime, and the indictment would have been good without them. If therefore the Jury are of opinion, on the merits of this case, that the prisoners are guilty, the Court will reserve this point for the opinion of THE JUDGES, more especially as this is the confession of one of the prisoners only, and a confession can only affect the person out of whose mouth it comes, and that it is as necessary that the fact should be proved against Hevey as against Beatty. |