prout patet, as remaining amongst those records. Rex v.
Shaw and others.
Page 526
30. Upon an indictment for maliciously shooting, if it be ques-
tionable whether the shooting was by accident or design,
proof may be given that the prisoner at another time inten-
tionally shot at the same person.
Rex v. Voke.
Securities issued by Government as Exchequer bills, are
effects" within the meaning of the 15 G. 2. c. 13. s. 12.,
although, from not having been signed by a person legally
authorized, they are not valid and legal Exchequer bills.
Rex v. Aslett.
In murder it is not essential to award the day of execution in
the sentence, the statute in that respect being only direc-
tory; and if a wrong day is awarded it will not vitiate the sen-
tence if the mistake is discovered and set right during the
assizes. Rex v. Wyatt.
1. Held, to be a false pretence within the 30 G.2. c.24. s. 1.
where the prisoner obtained money from the keeper of a
post-office, by assuming to be the person mentioned in a
money order, which he presented for payment, though he
did not make any false declaration or assertion in order to
obtain the money. Rex v. Story.
2. There may be a sufficient false pretence within 30 G. 2. c. 24.
by the acts and conduct of the party without any verbal re-
presentations of a false and fraudulent nature. The fact of
uttering a counterfeit note as a genuine note, held to be
tantamount to a representation that it was so.
Rex v.
Freeth.
3. Upon an indictment for obtaining money under false pre-
tences, it is not necessary to prove the whole of the pretence
charged, proof of part of the pretence and that the money
was obtained by such part is sufficient. Rex. v. Hill.
4. Indictment on 30 G.2. c. 24. s. 1. A pretence that the party
would do an act he did not mean to do (as a pretence to pay
for goods on delivery) is not a false pretence within the act.
Rex v. Goodhall.
5. A pretence to a parish officer as an excuse for not working,
that the party has not clothes when he really has, though it
induce the officer to give him clothes, is not obtaining
FALSE PRETENCES― continued.
goods by false pretences within the 30 G. 2. c. 24. Rex. v.
Wakeling.
FELO DE SE.
See MURDER, 9.
FERRETS.
Ferrets, though tame and saleable, cannot be the subject of lar-
ceny. Rex v. Searing.
1. Breaking down the head or mound of a fish pond, is not
a felony within the 9 G. 1. c.22., if the only object in so doing
is to steal the fish. Rex v. Ross.
2. Indictment on 5 G.3. c. 14. s. 1. for entering an enclosed
park, and taking fish bred, kept, and preserved there, in the
river Kent running through the park. It appeared that the
park was walled round, except where the river entered and
passed out, and that there were fences to keep in the deer;
that there was nothing to keep in the fish, that they were not
known to breed there, that nothing was done to stock the
river, but that persons were never suffered to angle in the
park without leave. Held, that this was not a place where
fish were considered as "bred, kept, or preserved," within
the meaning of this act, and therefore conviction wrong.
Rex v. Carradice and another.
1. Altering a bill from a lower to a higher sum is forging it;
and a person may be indicted on the 7 G. 2. c. 22. for forging
such an instrument, though the statute has the word alter as
well as forge; it was held no ground of defence that before
the alteration it had been paid by the drawer and re-issued.
Rex v. Teague.
2. Forgery at Common Law. Indictment held to be bad in
form, as it did not state what the instrument was in respect
of which the forgery was committed, nor how the party sign-
ing it had authority to sign it. Rex v. Wilcox.
3. The prisoner was convicted for uttering a forged note of a
Scotch corporation, called the British Linen Company; held
that the uttering a forged note of a Scotch corporation was
not an offence within the meaning of the 2 G.2. c.25. Q.
Whether such a company has any authority to issue bills?
Rex v. McKay.
4. Indorsing a bill, if a fictitious one, is a forgery, though the bill
would have been then equally received if endorsed by the
prisoner in his own name, if the fictitious name was used in
order to defraud. Rex v. Marshall.
Page 75
5. Forging a bill payable to the prisoner's own order, and ut-
tering it without indorsement as a security for a debt, is a
complete offence. Rex v. Birkett.
6. Where the name made use of by the prisoner in the forged
instrument was assumed by him with the intention of de-
frauding the prosecutor, a conviction for forgery was held
to be right, though the prisoner's real name would have
carried with it as much credit as the assumed name.
Whiley.
7. The party by whom the forged instrument purports to have
been made, while he has an interest in invalidating such in-
strument, is incompetent to prove any fact which contributes
to the proof of the forgery. Rex v. Crocker.
8. Altering a banker's one pound note by substituting the word
ten for the word one, held to be forgery. Rex v. Post. 101
9. Uttering a forged bill, importing to be payable to the
drawer's order with intent to defraud, is a complete offence,
though there is no indorsement upon it importing to be the
drawer's. Rex v. Wicks.
10. The offence of disposing and putting away forged bank
notes is complete, though the person to whom they were dis-
posed of was an agent for the Bank to detect utterers, and
applied to the prisoner to purchase forged notes, and had
them delivered to him as forged notes for the purpose of
disposing of them. Rex v. Holden and others.
11. The prisoner drew a bill, "Please to pay the bearer on de-
mand 151.," and signed it with his own name, but it was not
addressed to any one: there were forged upon this instru-
ment when uttered the words and signature, "Payable at
Messrs. Masterman & Co., White Hart Court, William
M'Inerheny." M'Inerheny kept cash at Masterman & Co.'s,
who were bankers. The Judges held that this was not an
order for payment of money, there being no special aver-
ments in the indictment that this was intended for an order,
or that Masterman & Co. were bankers. Rex v. Ravens-
croft.
161
12. If a note be made payable at a country banker's, or at
their bankers' in London, substituting another place for
one of the places named, by introducing a piece of paper
over the names of the London bankers, containing the
names of another banking house in London, is forgery.
Rex v. Treble.
Page 164
13. The prisoner drew a bill upon the Treasurer of the Navy
payable to blank or order, and signed it in the name of a navy
surgeon. Held that to constitute an order for payment of
money there must be some payee; a direction to pay to
blank or order is not sufficient. Rex v. Richards.
14. The prisoner was indicted for forging a bill of exchange.
The bill was payable to blank or order. Held that there
must be a payee; for forging an instrument payable to blank
order is not sufficient. Rex v. Randall.
15. Signing a bill, &c. in an assumed name is a forgery, if the
name was assumed to defraud the person to whom such
bill is given, though such person would equally have taken
the bill had the prisoner used his real name.
Francis.
16. Delivering a box containing, among other things, forged
stamps, to the party's own servants that he may carry them
to an inn to be forwarded by a carrier to a customer in the
country, is an uttering. If the delivery is in one county and
the inn to which the servant is to carry them in another,
the party may be indicted in the former county. The of-
fence of uttering a forged stamp will be complete, although,
at the time of uttering, certain parts of the stamp are con-
cealed, but all the parts that are visible are like a genuine
stamp, though the part concealed is unlike a genuine
stamp. Rex v. Collicott.
17. A memorandum importing that A. B. had paid a sum to
CD., but not importing any acknowledgment from C. D. of
his having received it, is not such a receipt as the statute
makes it capital to forge or utter. Rex v. Harvey.
227
18. The offence of uttering a forged stamp will be complete,
though, at the time of uttering, that part which is a
genuine stamp would in terms specify the amount of duty, is
concealed and in fact cut out, and though that part where
the paper was entire did not contain any thing specifying
the amount of duty, provided the parts left visible are like a
genuine stamp, 212. Rex v. Collicott.
19. A power of attorney is a deed within the meaning of the
2 G. 2. c.25 s. 1. Forging a deed is within this statute
though there may have been subsequent directory provi-
sions by statute, that instruments for the purpose of such
forged deed, shall be in a particular form, or shall comply
with certain requisites, and the forged deed is not in that
form, or does not comply with those requisites, for the direc-
tory provisions do not make the deed (though out of the
form prescribed, and without the requisites) wholly void.
Rex v. Lyon.
Page 255
20. To support a charge of forgery by subscribing a fitictious
name, there must be satisfactory evidence on the part of the
prosecutor that it is not the party's real name, and that it
was assumed for the purpose of fraud in that instance. As-
suming and using a fictitious name, though for purposes of
concealment and fraud, will not amount to forgery if it were
not for that very fraud or system of fraud of which the
forgery forms a part. Rex v. Bontien.
21. A wife, by her husband's order and procuration, but in his
absence knowingly uttered a forged order and certificate for
the payment of prize money, held that the presumption of
coercion at the time of uttering did not arise, as the husband
was absent, and that the wife was properly convicted of the
uttering, and the husband of procuring. Rex v. Morris and
another.
270
22. Forging in a false name, assumed for concealment, with a
view to a fraud, of which the forgery is part, is sufficient to
constitute the offence. If there is proof of what is the pri-
soner's real name, it is for him to prove that he used the
assumed name before the time he had the fraud in view,
even in the absence of all proof as to the what name he had
used for several years before the fraud in question. Rex v.
Peacock.
23. A jury ought to infer an intent to defraud the person who
would have to pay the instrument if it were genuine, although,
from the manner of executing the forgery, or from that per-
son's ordinary caution it would not be likely to impose on
him, and although the object was general to defraud who-
ever might take the instrument, and the intention of defraud-
ing in particular, the person who would have to pay the in-
strument, if genuine did not enter into the prisoner's con-
templation. Rex v. Mazagora.
24. A bill upon the commissioners of the navy
|