1765. DUNN'S CASE. 116. be any such person as Mary Wallace, executrix of John Wallace, a seaman, is totally immaterial. If an instrument be false in itself, and by its purporting to be the act of another, a credit is obtained, which would not otherwise have been given, it is a forgery; though the name it is given in be really a non-entity, as was decided in the case of Ann Lewis (1). Had the note in question been brought by the (1) Foster, prisoner ready signed with the name of Mary Wallace, executrix of John Wallace, and she had so obtained the money, it could hardly have been doubted but this would have been uttering a forgery. And what difference can it make that she signed that name (under the same misrepresentation) in the presence of the prosecutor, as the prisoner was an absolute stranger to him? He had no better means of knowing whether this was the note of Mary Wallace, than if she had signed it before she came thither. The falsity of the note and the fraud upon the prosecutor were precisely the same. Upon the whole, the nine Judges above-mentioned were of opinion, that the prisoner was liable to a sentence of death. But at a subsequent meeting it was agreed, that as MR. JUSTICE ASTON was of a different opinion, it would be proper to recommend the prisoner to mercy. 1766. THE KING against JAMES GIBSON. CASE XXXIII. AT the Old Bailey in January Session 1766, James Gibson, Forging a paan Attorney, was indicted on the statute of 12 Geo. I. c. 32. per writing before LORD CHIEF BARON PARKER, MR. JUSTICE GOULD, be an officepurporting to and MR. JUSTICE YATES, for forging a certain instrument in writing, purporting to be "an office-copy of a report of the Ac"countant-General, of money being paid into the Bank pur"suant to an order of Chancery," AND ALSO " an office-copy of paid into the "a certificate of one of the Cashiers of the Bank, of the pay 66 of one of the Cashiers of the Bank, is within the statute 12 Geo. I. c. 32. East, 899. copy of a report of the Accountantmoney being General's, of an office-copy Bank; and also of a certificate s. 9. S. C. 2 1766. GIBSON'S CASE. "ment of the money into the Bank." THE SECOND COUNT was for publishing the same, knowing them to be forged, &c. THE THIRD and FOURTH COUNTS were, the one for forging, the other for publishing " a writing in form of a writing pur"porting to be an office-copy of the certificate of the Ac"countant-General," and " an office-copy of the receipt of the "Cashier of the Bank," which certificate and receipt were set out in all the Counts as follows: "20th of Feb. 1764. "BETWEEN Robert Lee, Esq. and Christopher D'Oyley, "Esq. executors of Sir George Browne, Baronet, plaintiffs, "AND Robert Pringle, Esq. and others, defendants. "By original and supplemental bills, and bills of reviver. "I DO hereby certify, that pursuant to an order dated the "thirteenth of February instant, Mr. William Hunt, the "Receiver, hath paid into the Bank of England the sum of "four hundred and thirty-seven pounds thirteen shillings and seven pence, which is placed to my account as Accountant"General, and to the credit of the cause of Browne against Pringle, in Master Bennet's office; as appears by the re ceipt of Mr. B. Sabbarton, one of the Cashiers of the "Bank, DATED the sixteenth instant, hereto annexed. 66 "T. ANGUISH, "Accountant-General.” "LONDON, the 16th of Feb. 1764. "RECEIVED of Mr. William Hunt, the Receiver, the sum "of 4371. 13s. 7d. pursuant to an order dated 13 Feb. in"stant, made in the cause of Lee against Pringle, which 66 money is placed to the account of Thomas Anguish, Esq. 66 as Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, and to "the credit of the cause of Browne against Pringle, in Mas"ter Bennet's Office, in the books kept at the Bank for the "Suitors of the said Court of Chancery. "For the Governor and Co. of the Bank of England, "4371. 13s. 7d. entered." "T. Gradwell, examined." "B. Sabbarton." AND the offence was laid with intent to defraud the said William Hunt of the sum of 4371. 13s. 7d. against the form of the statute. THE Jury found a special verdict comprizing the facts above stated (a), and on the 26th November, 1767, following it was argued by Counsel (b) before LORD MANSFIELD and nine other of the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber. After the argument LORD MANSFIELD observed, that the verdict left but one question to consider, namely, whether the offence was within the statute 12 Geo. I. c. 32. s. 9; and said that if they had any doubts, the Judges would appoint it to be argued again the next term; and therefore their Lordships deferred giving their opinion. But in Hilary Term 1768, eleven Judges met at Serjeants'-Inn, and they were of opinion that the indictment and the special verdict were sufficient and needed no amendment; and that the case was within the statute. THE prisoner was executed on Wednesday 23d March, 1768. (a) See this special verdict stated at large, 2 East, Pleas Cro. 899. (b) See the arguments of Counsel, 2 East, Pleas Cro. 901. 1766. GIBSON'S CASE. 1767. THE KING against JOSEPH ALEXANDER. CASE XXXIV. Qu. Whether a false oath taken in Doc mons for the AT the Old Bailey in January Session 1767 Joseph Alexander, a Negro Servant belonging to the Duke de Nivernois, was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury, in falsely swear- tors' Coming in Doctors' Commons, that Charlotte, the daughter of purpose of obRobert Nesbit, Esq. of Marybone, was of the age of twenty- taining a marriage licence is one years and upwards, whereas in truth and in fact she was perjury? only of the age of sixteen. Ir appeared in evidence, that the prisoner being left in England on the departure of the Duke his master, had procured recommendations to Mr. Nesbit, and was admitted into his house in the character of a Preceptor, to teach his daugh 1767. ALEXANDER'S CASE. 1768. ter the French language, and other fashionable accomplishments, of which the prisoner was perfect master. Taking advantage of the opportunities which this employment afforded him, he obtained Miss Nesbit's consent to marry him. In order to warrant a Clergyman to perform the service, he obtained a licence by means of the false oath, for which he was now indicted; and in consequence of which the parties were married. THE Jury found the prisoner guilty; but the case was reserved for the opinion of the TWELVE JUDGES. The question was agitated several times; but the prisoner dying in Newgate, the result of their Lordships' deliberations was never publicly communicated (a). (a) The same point also came before the Judges in the case of Robert Woodman, who was indicted at the Old Bailey in September Session 1768, before MR. BARON PERROTT, present MR. JUSTICE WILLES and the present LORD CHIEF Baron, RecordER, for perjury in an affidavit in Doctors' Commons, in order to obtain a licence to marry one Catherine Hill, Spinster, to which he knew no lawful impediment; WHEREAS in truth and in fact he knew she was the wife of Ezekiel Shepherd. But the opinion of the Judges was not publicly communicated. CASE XXXV. Persons present aiding and assisting in shooting at another, are principals, and within the penalties of the BLACK ACT. S. C. 1 East, 413. THE COAL-HEAVERS' CASE. AT the Old Bailey in July Session 1768, the seven prisoners 66 "THE Jurors for our LORD the KING, upon their oath, present, that John Granger, late of the parish of St. Paul, "Shadwell, in the county of Middlesex, Labourer; Daniel "Clark, late of the same, Labourer; otherwise called Da"niel Clane, late of the same, Labourer; Richard Cornwall, "late of the same, Labourer; Patrick Lynch, late of the same, Labourer; Thomas Murray, late of the same, La"bourer; Peter Flaharty, late of the same, Labourer; and 66 "Nicholas M'Cabe, late of the same, Labourer; being illdesigning and disorderly persons, and of wicked and ma"licious dispositions, after the first day of June, 1723, to "wit, on the 21st day of April, in the eighth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the "Grace of God, &c. with force and arms, at the parish "aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, with certain guns, charged "with gunpowder and leaden bullets, feloniously did wilfully "and maliciously (a) shoot at one John Green, (he the said "John Green, then being in the dwelling-house of him the said John Green, situate in the said parish of St. Paul, «Shadwell, in the said county of Middlesex) against the "peace of our said LORD the KING, his Crown and Digni"ty; and also against the form of the statute, in such case "made and provided." THE evidence disclosed a scene of warfare quite unexampled, except in times of general commotion. An Act of Parliament had then lately passed for regulating the wages of Coal-Heavers, and a person of the name of Green was appointed deputy-agent for carrying the provisions of the statute into execution. An opposition, however, being made by a Justice of the Peace in the neighbourhood of Shadwell, Mr. Green became obnoxious to the Coal-Heavers, and they in great numbers tumultuously attacked his house in Gravel-lane, with every species of offensive weapon they could collect. Four of the prisoners were proved to have fired at Mr. Green through the windows of his house; and the marks of a great number of balls were afterwards found in different parts of the room. The other three prisoners were proved to have been present when the others fired, but they were not seen to use any fire-arms themselves. THE Jury found all the prisoners guilty; but a question 66 (a) The modern indictments upon this statute are, unlawfully, wilfully, maliciously, and feloniously did shoot, &c." The offence must be charged to have been done wilfully and maliciously as well as feloniously: and therefore in Davis's Case where the word wilfully was omitted, the indictment was held to be bad. See post, Rex v. Davis, Hertford Sum 1768. THE COAL- CASE. |