1802. TEAGUE'S Case. 7 G. 2. c.22. making it a distinct offence to alter, viz. If any person shall falsely make, alter (a), forge or counterfeit, or alter or publish as true any false, altered, forged, or counterfeited acceptance of any bill of exchange, or accountable receipt for any note, bill, or other security for payment of money, or warrant or order for the payment of money or delivery of goods, with intent, &c. knowing, &c. 2dly. That the act permitting the re-issuing of notes after the same shall have been paid, related only to promissory notes; but this was a bill of exchange, and could not be legally re-issued without a fresh stamp; and having been re-issued three times before it was altered, it was not a valid bill for 10l. at the time it was altered to 50l., and therefore it was not that species of forgery which consisted in the altering a true and valid bill. On the first day of Michaelmas term, 1802, ALL THE JUDGES met at LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S chambers, and were of opinion that the indictment was good, in stating that the prisoner forged and uttered knowing it to be forged, although the forgery was in altering a 10. bill into a 50. bill, and that it was not necessary to state that he altered (b) the bill. On the second objection ALL THE JUDGES were of opinion, that although the bill was not a good and valid bill for 10l., having been re-issued after having been paid, and being only stamped with the proper stamp for a re-issuable promissory note, yet that it was the same thing as forging or uttering a forged bill with a wrong stamp, which has been determined to be a capital felony (c); they therefore held the conviction right. (a) But see 2 Geo. 2. c. 25. which does not use the term alter, but makes it felony without benefit of clergy, to falsely make, forge, or counterfeit, or utter any forged or counterfeited bill of exchange, &c.; and see also the preamble to 7 Geo. 2. c. 22. (b) See Rex v. Dawson, 1 Stra. 19. before ALL THE JUDGES who held, that changing the figure 2 into the figure 5 in a bank note (220l. to 250l.) was forging and counterfeiting a bank note. (c) See Hawkeswood's Case, 1 Leach C. C. 257. and Rex v. Morton, 2 East, P. C. 955. In these cases it was held that forgery might be committed of a bill of exchange or promissory note on unstamped paper. 1802. REX v. ROBERT BAKEWELL. THE prisoner was tried before THE RECORDER, at the Old Bailey A bank clerk April sessions, in the year 1802. The indictment charged, that Robert Bakewall was, as an officer and servant of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, entrusted with a certain note, the tenor whereof is as follows: "No. 6528. 16th Jan. 1801. No. 6528. employed to post into the ledger and cash-book, from 1001. in read from the Bank-notes value up to a 1000l. and who in the course of that occupation had, with other clerks, access I promise to pay to Mr. Abraham Newland, or bearer, on to a file, upon demand, the sum of fifty pounds. Fifty. London, the 16th day of Jan. 1801. Entered C. Clarke. For the Governor and Company S. UNDERHILL." belonging to the said Governor and Company, and that he did feloniously secrete, embezzle, and run away with the same note, against the statute, &c. The second count charged the prisoner, that, as an officer and servant of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, he was entrusted with certain effects belonging to the said Governor and Company, that is to say, a certain paid note, and that he did feloniously secrete and embezzle, and run away with the said paid note, against the statute, &c. which paid notes of every description were filed; took from that file a paid bank note for 501. Held that the prisoner could not be contrusted with the possession of this note, so sidered as en as to bring him within the 15 G. 2. c. 13. s. 12. (a) Qu. Whether cancelled by a note once the Bank is within the It appeared, that the prisoner was employed by the bank on 15 G.2. c.13.? the 26th of March, 1801, to post into the ledger, and to read (a) By which it is enacted, That if any officer or servant of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, being entrusted with any note, bill, dividend warrant, bond, deed, or any security, money, or other effects belonging to the said company, or having any bill, dividend warrant, &c. of any other person or persons lodged or deposited with the said company, or with him as an officer or servant of the said company, shall secrete, embezzle, or run away with any such note, bill, &c. or any part of them, every officer or servant so offending, and being thereof convicted in due form of law, shall be deemed guilty of felony without benefit of clergy. 1802. BAKEWELL'S from the cash-book, bank notes of certain denominations, viz. from 1007. up to 1000l., paid on the 24th of March preceding; and that in the course of that employment he, together with many other clerks, had access to the file on which all paid notes of every denomination were placed on that day; among which was the note in question, which had come into the bank and had been paid on the 24th of March, and which note, it appeared, he had himself put upon the file. It appeared that the files, after the balance of the evening was made up, were locked up in Mr. Newland's strong room, and delivered out the next day. It appeared to be the custom of the bank, after payment of a note, to tear off the cashier's name, and upon entering it in the cash-book to punch a hole through it, upon which the note was considered as cancelled. The note in question had not been cancelled in the usual manner, the cashier's name not having been torn off, though the entry had been made in the cash-book, but it had been punched, though the hole had not been made in the proper part of the note. The prisoner took this note from the file, and passed it for a valuable consideration. There was evidence that his motive was to get a reward from the bank, by showing how easily such frauds might be committed and the bank defrauded. The prisoner's counsel contended, that the note having been paid and cancelled by the bank, was not, at the time of the embezzlement, any of the securities mentioned in the statute; and that even if it were to be considered as a note, or as effects belonging to the bank, the prisoner had not been entrusted with the possession of it so as to bring him within the statute, the only notes with which he could be said to have been entrusted being notes from 100%. up to a 10002. The prisoner was found guilty, but THE RECORDER saved the objections for the opinion of the TWELVE JUDGES. On Tuesday, 30th November, 1802, this case was argued before ALL THE JUDGES (except HEATH J.) at Serjeant's Inn Hall, and the conviction was held to be wrong, on the ground that it did not appear, by the facts stated in the case, that the prisoner was a person entrusted with the cancelled note, although he had access to it: and THE JUDGES advised that the prisoner should be recommended to the Crown for a pardon. 1803. REX v. EASTERBY AND MACFARLANE. risdiction. Held that the Admiralty had no jurisdiction. to try an of the statute 11 fence against G. 1. c. 29. in destruction of procuring the aship of which the prisoners were the owners,there being no evidence of any act of pro curement done upon the high P. C. Addend. Ar the Admiralty sessions at the Old Bailey, holden on the Admiralty ju 26th of October, 1802, before Sir WILLIAM SCOTT, JUDGE of the High Court of Admiralty, LORD ELLENBOROUGH C. J., and THOMPSON B., four persons, namely, William Codling and John Reid, mariners, and William Macfarlane and George Easterby, merchants, were indicted upon the statute 11 G. 1. c. 29. ss. 6, 7. The indictment stated, that the said William Codling and John Reid, on the 8th day of August, in the forty-second year of his majesty's reign, upon the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, were on board a vessel called the Adventure, whereof the said William Codling was the master of and belonging to the same, and the said John Reid an officer belonging to the same, which vessel was insured for divers sums of seas within the jurisdiction of money,, amounting, in the whole, to the sum of 700l., by Robert the Admiralty. Shedden, Joseph Marryat, and several other underwriters (by S. C. 1 East. name), who had before that time severally underwritten a policy xxvi. 2 Leach of insurance on such vessel; and that the said William Codling 947. and John Reid, with force and arms on the high seas within the jurisdiction aforesaid, &c., wilfully and feloniously made divers holes in and through a certain part of the said vessel called the larboard run, and divers other holes in and through a certain other part of the said vessel called the larboard quarter, by means whereof the water of the said sea entered, filled, and sunk the said vessel; and that the said William Codling and John Reid, so respectively being such master and officer belonging to the said vessel, thereby wilfully and feloniously destroyed the said vessel, to which the said William Codling and John Reid so respectively belonged, with a wicked and dishonest intent and design to prejudice the said Robert Shedden, Joseph Marryat, and the several other underwriters (by name), and who had so underwritten the said policy of insurance on the said vessel, and were severally and respectively insurers on the said vessel, against the form of the statute, &c.; and that William Macfarlane and George Easterby, on the said 8th day of August, on the high sea within the jurisdiction aforesaid, were owners of, and each of them was an 1803. EASTERBY'S owner of, the said vessel called the Adventure, and so being such owners, and each of them being such owner, with force and arms, wilfully and feloniously procured the said William Codling and the said John Reid, the felony aforesaid, in manner and form aforesaid, to do, commit, and perpetrate, they the said William Macfarlane and George Easterby, at the time of the said felony so done, committed, and perpetrated by the said William Codling and John Reid as aforesaid, being owners, and each of them being an owner of the said vessel, with a wicked and dishonest intent and design to prejudice the said Robert Shedden, Joseph Marryat, and the several other underwriters (by name) who had underwritten the said policy of insurance on the said vessel, and were severally insurers on the said vessel, against the form of the statute, &c. The second count of the indictment was the same as the first, except that Joseph Marryat alone was therein stated as the underwriter, instead of the whole six whose names were upon the policy. The third count was the same as the first, except that the vessel was therein stated to have been cast away, instead of being destroyed by boring holes, &c. The fourth count was the same as the second, with the variation of the ship being alleged to have been cast away, instead of being destroyed by boring holes, &c. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth counts corresponded with the first, second, third, and fourth, except that the vessel was, in such fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth counts, called "Adventure" instead of "The Adventure," and except that Reid was therein stated to have been a mariner instead of an officer. It appeared by the evidence, that the vessel called the Adventure, having taken in part of her cargo in the port of London, sailed therewith to Yarmouth, where she took in other part thereof, and from thence to Deal; that a few days after sailing from Deal, and when she was on the high seas, within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, at the distance of a few miles from Brighton, on the coast of Sussex, she was sunk by means of the boring of several holes in the several parts of her bottom described in the indictment, by augers, and more particularly by means of a large hole being made in her bottom by a crow bar, which holes were all of them so bored and made by one Thomas Cooper, the mate of the vessel, by the orders, and some of them, and particularly the hole with the crow-bar (which immediately occasioned the |