part of what had been said might, by using different words, give a different colour to the fact. The Court refused the oral testimony.-In January Session 1785, Alexander Fisher was tried before MR. JUSTICE HEATH for a burglary in the dwelling-house of B. Ward. The facts of Mr. Ward's house having been broken open in the night-time, and the goods mentioned in the indictment stolen therefrom, were clearly proved; but there was no other evidence to fix these facts upon the prisoner than his confession made on his examination before the committing Magistrate; and there being no evidence that this confession was not reduced into writing, viva voce testimony of it was rejected.-But in the case of John Wheeling, tried before LORD KENYON at the Summer Assizes at Salisbury 1789, it was determined that a prisoner may be convicted on his own confession, when proved by legal testimony, although it is totally uncorroborated by any other evidence. 1784. JACOBS'S CASE. THE KING against WILLIAM NEWLAND. CASE CLI ment for AT the Old Bailey in February Session 1784, William On an indictNewland was indicted before MR. BARON PERRYN, present forging a MR. SERJEANT ADAIR, Recorder, for forging a bank-note, bank-note, signed " WILLIAM LANDER, For the Governor and Com- who signed it "pany of the Bank of England." the cashier "For the Governor and Company of the Bank of MR. Lander was a Cashier of the Bank of England, properly authorized by the Directors to subscribe bank-notes England" is with his own name for the Governor and Company; and had competent given security to them for the faithful performance of this prove the forduty. witness to gery; for he is not, by such personally re THE QUESTION Was, Whether Mr. Lander was a compe- a signature, tent witness to prove that the bank-note charged to be forged sponsible for was not a genuine bank-note, and that the name "William payment "Lander" subscribed thereto was not his hand-writing (a)? S. c. 2 East, (a) In the case of Rex v. Hughes on a similar prosecution with the present, tried before MR. JUSTICE LE BLANC, at Exeter Spring Assizes 1802, it was held that the hand-writing of the cashier of the bank, might be disproved by any other person, who was acquainted with his handwriting. And in the case of Rex v. Dennis M'Guire, at Lancaster Spring Assizes 1801, before MR. JUSTICE CHAMBRE, a conviction for forging a Bank-note was established, on reference to the JUDGES, without the aid of the cashier's testimony to disprove his hand-writing, the forgery of which was established by other evidence, which shewed that the instrument was the of the note. 1001, 1002. 1784. NEWLAND'S CASE. GARROW, for the prisoner, contended, that Mr. Lander was an incompetent witness from the interest which he had in the event of the prosecution; for, upon a supposition that he had signed the note by virtue of the authority delegated to him for that purpose by the Court of Directors, and had issued it, so signed, without carrying it to the account of the Bank, he would be liable to a criminal prosecution for the fraud, and to a civil action on his security bonds, for the damage which the Bank might eventually sustain; and therefore, although perhaps he was not personally liable to the holder for the amount of the note, he was deeply interested to swear that the name subscribed to it was a forgery, as the only means of avoiding the detection of the fraud. An interest, however faint and remote, is sufficient to destroy the competency of the witness. A commoner who comes to say that a common is not commonable but for such a number of cattle, or to such a description of persons; a corporation who would confine the exercise of a franchise; a parishioner in a question concerning the removal of a pauper; are all inadmissible witnesses, on the ground of interest; and yet their interest is extremely distant and minute. A master may maintain the suit of his servant; but if he acknowledge that he is under an honorary consideration to pay his costs, he cannot be examined in his cause (1). Suppose a servant assaulted in defence of his master; if on the trial of an action for this injury the master were to declare, that although he PARKER, per Mr. BARON was not bound in law to defray the costs of an acquittal, yet that in honour and generosity he ought not to permit his Woolridge's Case, Old Bai- servant to suffer, his testimony would be rejected, from the presumed bias of his mind, on the ground of interest: for, to use the words of LORD MANSFIELD, "Courts of Justice do "not sit to weigh what degree of temptation the minds of "men are capable of resisting, but to take care that they "shall not be exposed to any temptations whatsoever." If (1) A witness was rejected on this ground by L. C. B. PERRYN in ley February Session 1784. false in all its parts, in the texture of the paper,, the watermark, the engraving, the ink, and the written date of the year, which was 1798, though the printed date under the Britannia was 1799: being altogether proved to be such as the Bank never made or issued, 2 East. C. L, 1002. this were the case of a common forgery, the objection would be unanswerable; for it is settled, that a person who has subscribed a note, and is therefore primâ facie liable to pay it, cannot be examined to impeach the security; and the interest which Mr. Lander has upon the present occasion cannot be thought less considerable. BEARCROFT, for the Crown. It has been the constant and unopposed practice of Courts to admit the Cashiers of the Bank to prove the forgery of their signatures to banknotes. It is certainly true, that when a witness is called to prove a proposition in which he is directly interested to say "Yes" rather than "No," he shall not be admitted as a witness to say "Yes." I admit also, that the question is not on the quantity of interest; for if an interest amount only to five shillings, it is equally objectionable, as if it amounted to twenty thousand pounds. I admit also, that if Mr. Lander came here to prove the forgery of his own note, he would not be a competent witness, because his own note he would be primâ facie liable to pay; but Mr. Lander's signature as a Cashier of the Bank does not bind himself, for it professes to be "for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England;" and the holder of a note so signed can call only on the Governor and Company to pay it. The fact of Mr. Lander's not being personally liable, is a sufficient answer to this objection; for nothing but an immediate, direct, and personal interest, is sufficiently strong to overthrow the competency of a witness. The objection indeed cannot be speciously stated, except on a presumption of Mr. Lander's having abused his trust; but the rule of law is to presume innocence until guilt be proved; and therefore an interest cannot be inferred from such a presumption, in order to ground an objection to the competency of his evidence. Case, On THE COURT. This case is perfectly clear: Mr. Lander See Weller's does not make himself personally responsible, by signing slow's Nisi bank-notes in his own name "for the Governor and Com- Prius, 252. 1 Strange, "pany of the Bank of England;" and the law will not per- 129. Dougl. mit so forced and violent a presumption to be raised, as that 134. 1 Term Rep. 296. and the Case of Bent v. Baker. 3 Term Rep. 27. 1784. NEWLAND'S CASE. a man is guilty of a crime, in order to lay a platform on which to raise an objection to his competency on the ground of interest. To repel the testimony of a witness who comes to prove the forgery of his own hand-writing, it must appear that he would be liable to be sued in case it was genuine. The interest must be apparent on the face of the instrument itself, or arise immediately from the nature of the transaction, or from his own acknowledgement; for if a witness admit himself to have an interest, whether he has an interest in fact or not, yet the belief of it has an equal operation on his mind; ante, in March and in either of these cases, it would be an objection to his testimony. In the present case, unless criminality be presumed, interest cannot be inferred; and such a presumption is certainly repugnant to the first principles of law. See Mrs. Rudd's case 1775, page 127, Case 70. MR. Lander's evidence was accordingly received, but the prisoner was acquitted (a). (a) After the riots in the year 1780, a reward was offered by Government for the apprehension and conviction of any of the rioters; and a question arose, Whether persons thus interested in the conviction of the criminals were admissible witnesses against them? It was submitted to the consideration of the TWELVE JUDGES; and they unanimously agreed, That the testimony of witnesses who were intitled to and claimed the reward was admissible, notwithstanding that interest; and they mentioned the case of robbery, &c. where not only restitution of the stolen goods, but the title to the parliamentary reward, depended on the conviction of the offenders; and the case of witnesses intitled to rewards from the Bank, Post-Office, and other public places; and yet these rewards had never been considered as giving such an interest as would destroy the competency of the witness, M. S.-See the argument in Mrs. Rudd's case upon the admissibility of Mrs. Perreau's testimony, ante, page 127–128. CASE CLII. To aid and assist a person unknown, to THE KING against HUMPHRey moore. THIS was a case reserved for the opinion of the TWELVE to the Jurors JUDGES by MR. SERJEANT ADAIR, Recorder, at the Old obtain money Bailey in April Session 1784, upon the trial of an indictment by the practice of ring-dropping, is FELONY, if the Jury find that the prisoner was confederating with the person unknown to obtain the money by means of this practice.-S.C. 2 East, 679. for stealing twenty guineas, and four pieces of foreign gold coin called doubloons, the property of John Field, in the dwelling-house of John Brown. THE material circumstances of this case, as they appeared in evidence, were as follow: The prosecutor John Field, a soldier, just returned from the war in America, was walking along James-street, Covent-garden, when a stranger joined company with him. As they walked in friendly conversation with each other down Long-Acre, the stranger suddenly stopped, and picked up a purse which was lying at a door. After they had proceeded about forty yards, "Come," says the stranger," we will go and drink a pot of porter, and "see what we have picked up." The prosecutor was persuaded to comply; and they accordingly went into a private room in an adjacent public-house, where the stranger pulled out the purse, and from one end of it produced a receipt, signed "W. Smith," for 2101. "for one brilliant diamond "cluster ring," and from the other end he pulled out the ring itself. A conversation ensued upon the subject of their good fortune, during which time the prisoner Humphrey Moore entered the room; and being shewed the ring, he praised the beauty of its lustre, and offered to settle the division of its value. Upon the stranger's lamenting that he had no money about him, the prisoner asked the prosecutor if he had any. The prosecutor replied, that he had forty or fifty pounds at home. "That sum will just do," said the prisoner. A coach was immediately called, and all three were driven to the prosecutor's lodgings at Chelsea. The prosecutor and the stranger went into the house together, leaving the prisoner at the Five-fields. The prosecutor took his money from his bureau, put it into his pocket, and returned with the stranger to a public-house in the Five-fields, Chelsea, kept by John Brown, where they again met the prisoner, who said, "I will give you your share of the ring, if 86 you will be content till to-morrow." The prosecutor put down twenty guineas and four doubloons, which the stranger took up, and in return gave the prosecutor the ring; desiring that he would meet him at the same place on the next morn 1784. MOORE'SCASE. |