a person renounces the mercy, and imprecates the vengeance of heaven, if he do not speak the truth; and therefore a person who has no idea of the sanction which this appeal to heaven creates, ought not to be sworn as a witness in any Court of Justice (a). (a) In the case of Omichund v. Barker, in Ch. Mich. Term 1744, on a question determined by LORD HARDWICKE, LEE C. J. WILLES C. J. and PARKER C. B. as to the admissibility of the evidence of a Gentoo, it was said by WILLES C. J. and agreed by the Court, that persons who do not believe in God, or in a future state of rewards and punishments, clearly ought not to be admitted as witnesses, 1 Atkins, 45. and the testimony of a witness was rejected on this ground by MR. JUSTICE GROSE at Bedford Spring Assizes 1789, on an indictment of murder. 1786. WHITE'SCASE. 1787. THE KING against MOFFATT. CASE CC. AT the Old Bailey in January Session 1787, John Moffatt A bill of exwas indicted on the statute 2 Geo. II. c. 25, and 7 Geo. II. change draw o for less than c. 22. before MR. SERJEANT ADAIR, Recorder, for forging the sum, and and uttering the acceptance to a bill of exchange, to the fol- not in the lowing purport: " SIR, NAVY-OFFICE, 21st December, 1786. form required be the subject forgery. "SEVEN DAYS after date, please to pay to Mr. John Mof- of a capital fatt, or his order, the sum of three pounds three shillings, S. C. 2 East, and place the same to the account of "To George Peters, Esq. BANK OF ENGLAND." "WALTER STERLING." "Accepted, G. Peters." Indorsed, "JOHN MOFFATT, now Surgeon of the Scipio THE indictment consisted of eight counts, charging the prisoner with having forged the name of the drawer, and the 954. 1787. MOFFATT'S CASE. acceptance of the said George Peters; and with uttering the same knowing them to be forged: and these four offences were respectively laid to have been committed with an intention to defraud, 1st, William Bell; and 2dly, George Peters. ON producing the note in evidence, an objection was taken Mr. Knowlys. in favour of the prisoner by a gentleman at the bar, that it was not stamped pursuant to the statutes of 23 Geo. III. c. 49. and 24 Geo. III. s. 1. c. 7. and therefore could not be admitted in evidence. But the Court over-ruled this objection, upon the authority of The King v. Hawkeswood (a); and the Jury found the prisoner Guilty, subject to the opinion of the TWELVE JUDGES upon the following case: By the statutes of 15 Geo. III. c. 51. and 17 Geo. III. c. 30. (which continued in force until the end of the Session of Parliament during which the forgery was committed,) it is enacted, "That all promissory or other notes, bills of exchange, or draughts, or undertakings in writing, being negotiable or transferable for the payment of twenty shillings, or any sum of money above that sum and less than five pounds, or on which twenty shillings, or above that sum and less than five pounds, shall remain undischarged, or which shall be issued in England, shall specify the names and places of abode of the persons respectively to whom or to whose order the same shall be made payable; and shall bear date before or at the time of drawing or issuing thereof, and not on any day subsequent thereto; and shall be made payable within space of twenty-one days next after the date thereof; and shall not be transferable or negotiable after the time thereby limited for the payment thereof; and that every indorsement to be made thereon shall be made before the expiration of that time, and to bear date at or not before the time of making thereof; and shall specify the name and place of the (a) See Hawkeswood's Case, Worcester Spring Assizes 1783, ante, page 257, Case 129. Rex v. Morton, York Summer Assizes 1795, 2 East, 955. Rex v. Colin Reculist, Old Bailey January Session 1796, post. Rex v. Charles Davis, Surry Spring Assizes 1796. 1787. CASE. abode of the person or persons to whom or to whose order the money contained in every such note, bill, draught, or undertaking is to be paid; and also every such indorsement MOFFATT'S shall be attested by one subscribing witness at least; and which said notes, bills of exchange, or draughts, or undertakings in writing, may be made or drawn in words to the purport or effect as set out in the schedule hereunto annexed (a); and that all promissory or other notes, bills of exchange, or draughts, or undertakings in writing, being negotiable or transferrable for the payment of twenty shillings, or any sum of money above that sum and less than five pounds, or on which twenty shillings, or above that sum and less than five pounds, shall remain undischarged, and which shall be issued in England in any other manner than as aforesaid; and also every indorsement on any such note, bill, draught, or undertaking, to be negotiated under this Act other than as aforesaid; shall, and the same are hereby declared to be void, any law, statute, usage, or custom, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding." statutes then impose a penalty of not less than five pounds, nor more than twenty pounds, on any person who shall utter, publish, or negotiate notes, bills of exchange, &c. contrary to the method above prescribed. But by the preamble, these clauses are not to operate in prejudice to the negotiation of promissory notes, and inland bills of exchange for the remittance of money in discharge of any balance of account, or other debt. The (a) TWENTY-ONE days after date pay to A. B. of (Place) or his order, the sum of Value received, as advised by N.B. There is another form mentioned in the Act for promissory notes. 1787. MOFFATT'S CASE. THE question referred to the JUDGES was, Whether, if the bill of exchange set forth in the indictment be void by the above statutes, inasmuch as it is not drawn according to the form prescribed; the bill not specifying the place of abode of the payee, nor being attested by any subscribing witness, the forging of it can become the subject of a capital offence within the meaning of the statutes of 2 Geo. II. c. 25. and 7 Geo. II. c. 22.? IN February Session 1787, MR. JUSTICE GOULD signified that all the JUDGES had, in the preceding Hilary Term, taken this case into their consideration, but that they thought it a subject which required farther deliberation. In the May Session following, MR, JUSTICE ASHHURST delivered their unanimous opinion, That as the forgery was committed before the expiration of the statutes of 15 Geo. III. c. 51. and 17 Geo. III. c. 30. (a), the bill of exchange, if real, would not have been valid or negotiable; and therefore the forging of it was not a capital offence (b). (a) These statutes were made perpetual by 27 Geo. III. c. 16. but they were again suspended by the statutes 37 Geo. III. c. 32, 61, 120. 38 Geo. III. c. 7. 39 Geo. III. c. 9, 24, 47, and 107. s. 8. 43 Geo. III. c. 1. 44 Geo. III. c. 4. and 45 Geo. III. c. 25. until six months after the ratifications of a treaty of peace, and are then revived as amended by 37 Geo. III. c. 32. (b) See Mackintosh's Case, Old Bailey September Session 1800, post. CASE CCI. THE KING against FRANCIS PARR. Obtaining and AT the Old Bailey in January Session 1787, Francis Parr indorsing a dividend warwas tried before MR. SERJEANT ADAIR, Recorder, on the statute 31 Geo. II. c. 22. s. 77. for personating Isaac Hart, of Windsor, the true and real proprietor of and in 39007. stockholder, capital stock, and thereby falsely endeavouring to receive from is," personat rant at the Bank in the name of a ing a proprietor, and thereby endeavouring to receive the dividend," although no attempt whatever is made to receive the money at the Pay-Office.-S. C. 2 East, 1005. the Governor and Company of the Bank of England the sum of 581. 10s. as and for half-a-year's annuity, as if HE was the said true and lawful owner of the money. It appeared in evidence, that the prisoner applied to Mr. George, the dividend-payer of the three per cent. Consols at the Bank, for the dividend on 3900l. stock, in the three per cent. Consols, amounting to 581. 10s. THE application was in the following form:-The prisoner said, "Isaac Hart 3900l." Mr. George asked, "Of what place?" The prisoner replied, "Of Windsor," which agreed with the description in the book. Mr. George turned the dividend book round to the prisoner, and he signed the name Isaac Hart as the proprietor. Mr. George then gave the prisoner a dividend warrant for the sum of 58l. 10s. which the prisoner indorsed in the name Isaac Hart. In order to receive the money upon a dividend warrant, it is necessary for the bearer of it to apply to the Pay-Office, which is situated at some distance from the office in which the warrants are delivered out; but it was in proof that the prisoner, instead of attempting to receive the money at the Pay-Office, had walked a different way with the warrant in his pocket, and no attempt was in fact ever made to receive it; for the prisoner was apprehended in about ten minutes after he had procured the warrant, as he was standing in the Rotunda of the Bank. MORGAN and KNOWLYS, for the prisoner, contended, that this evidence did not maintain the charge in the indictment, or satisfy the meaning of the statute on which it was founded. The Legislature, they said, had made two distinct and independent acts necessary to be performed before the offence could be completed. FIRST, That the true and real proprietor of the stock should be personated. SECONDLY, That the person personating the proprietor should endeavour to receive the money. The words of the statute are, that "if any person or persons whatsoever shall falsely and deceitfully personate any true and real proprietor of the share or shares, or any part of any share or shares, annuities, or dividends, 1787. PARR'S CASE. |