a bill of exchange, although it is not such an instrument as
the 35 G. 3. c. 94. warrants. Rex v. Chisholm. Page 297
25. It is not necessary that a promissory note should be negoti-
able, in order to be a promissory note within 2 G. 2. c. 25. so
as to be the subject of an indictment for forging or uttering
Rex v. Box.
26. Forging a magistrate's order to pay money will not be a
capital offence, if the act of parliament, under which alone
the magistrate has power to make it, requires it to be under
hand and seal, and it is under hand only; and if it is ad-
dressed to a character on whom the magistrate has no power
to make such order by the act. Rex v. Rushworth.
27. The bank having preferred bills for uttering, and having
in possession in respect of the same note, and having
elected to proceed on the bill for having in possession: held,
that although facts, sufficient to support the capital charge,
were made out in proof, an acquittal for the minor offence
ought not to be directed, because the whole of the minor
offence was proved, and it did not merge in the larger. It is
not necessary that the signing clerk at the Bank should be
produced, if witnesses acquainted with his hand-writing state
that the signature to the note is not in his hand-writing.
The Bank may elect to proceed on indictments for the lesser
offence, although indictments have been found for the capi-
tal charge.
28. By the 48 G. 3. c. 75., a justice of the peace may order the
treasurer of the county to pay every church-warden, over-
seer, head-borough, or constable, the expences he has in-
curred in burying any dead body that has been cast on
shore. A justice's order was forged, stating that a dead
body had been cast on shore in the parish of A., that I. S.
had made oath before the justice that he had laid out 37. 5s.
in the burying him, and requiring the treasurer to pay him
the sum.
Held, that this was a warrant or order for the
payment of money within the 7 G. 2., though the order did
not state that I. S. was a church-warden, &c. Rex v.
Froud.
29. A bill was addressed to T. B., baize manufacturer, Rumford,
Essex. The prisoner uttered this bill with an acceptance
thereon made by T. B., who did not live at Rumford,
and was not a baize manufacturer. Held, that the adopt-
ing a false description and addition where a false name
was not assumed, and where there was no person answer-
ing the description or addition, was not a forgery. Rex v. Webb.
Page 405 30. A bill was addressed to Messrs. Williams & Co., bankers, Birchin Lane, London; and there might, at that time, have been a 3 on the lower left-hand corner of the bill. The prisoner was asked, at the time, whether the acceptors were Williams, Birch, & Co.; and his answers imported that they were. Williams, Birch, & Co., lived at No. 20, Birchin Lane, and it was not their acceptance. There were no known bankers in London using the style of Williams & Co. but them; but at No. 3, Birchin Lane, the name " Williams & Co." was on the door; and some bills addressed to Messrs. Williams & Co., bankers, Swansea, had been accepted, payable at No. 3., and had been paid there. There was no evidence who lived at No. 3., but another bill, of the same tenor as that in question, drawn by the prisoner had been accepted there. Held, that on these facts the prisoner was improperly convicted of uttering a forged acceptance knowing it to be forged, Rex v. Watts.
31. If several combine to forge an instrument and each executes by himself a distinct part of the forgery, and they are not together when the instrument is completed, they are nevertheless all guilty as principals, Rex v. Bingley and others
32. Forging or uttering a note which, for want of a signature, is incomplete, is not within the statute which makes forging notes capital. Rex v. Pateman.
33. Forgery of a Prussian treasury note. The note in question being in a foreign language and the indictment not containing any English translation of it, judgment was arrested. Rex v. Goldstein.
34. Instrument in the form of a promissory note, held not to be the subject of an indictment for forgery at common law. Rex v. Burke.
35. What a possession of forged notes within the 45 G. 3. c.89. See Rex v. Rowley.
See CHEATS, FALSE PRETENCES.
FREEHOLDER.
A person may serve on the grand jury, although he is not a
GAOL-DELIVERY.
See PRACTICE, 2.
1. If several persons are out with the intent to kill game, and
only one of them is armed, the rest who are unarmed, are
liable to be convicted under the 57 G. 3. c. 90. Rex v. Smith
and others.
Page 368
2. It is no answer to a charge under the 57 G.3. c.90., that
the prisoners put down their arms and left them before they
were seen, if it was perceived that some one was there
armed before they were seen. Rex v. Nash and another. 386
3. If several go into a close in the night, to kill game, and
one has arms without the knowledge of the others, the
other persons who are unarmed, are not liable to be con-
victed under the 57 G. 3. c. 90. Rex v. Southern.
4. A person convicted under the 57 G. 3. c.90. of being found
armed in the night, in a forest, chase, park, wood, or plant-
ation, may be sentenced to hard labour by 3 G. 4. c. 114. ;
for all these places are either open or inclosed grounds.
Rex v. Pankhurst and another.
1. An Irish peer ought not to serve upon a grand jury, un-
less he is a member of the House of Commons.
2. A person may serve on the grand jury, although he is not
a freeholder.
1. An indictment for horse-stealing, must give the animal
one of the descriptions mentioned in the statute. Therefore
an indictment for stealing a colt, not saying whether it was
horse or mare, will not be sufficient to take away clergy;
but the prisoner may be convicted for simple larceny. Rex
v. Beaney.
2. If the owner parts with the possession of goods for a
special purpose, and the bailee, when that purpose is exe-
cuted, neglects to return them, and afterwards disposes of
them; if he had not a felonious intention when he originally
took them, his subsequent withholding and disposing of
them will not constitute a new felonious taking or make
him guilty of felony. Rex v. Banks.
3. Foals and filleys are within the statute 2 & 3 Edw. 6., and
are included in the words horse, gelding, or mare. Held.
therefore, that evidence of stealing a mare filley, supported
an indictment for stealing a mare. Rex v. Welland. Page 494
HOUSE BREAKING.
The 39 Eliz. c. 15. extended as to aiders and abettors; by
3 & 4 W. & M. c.9. An offender ousted of his clergy by the
latter statute, as being present though out of the house and
aiding and abetting one who breaks in and steals, may be
charged with the breaking and entering. Rex v. Byford
and another.
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. Rex
v. Morris.
INDENTURE.
See EVIDENCE, 3.
INDICTMENT.
1. Indictment on the 15 G. 2. c. 28. s.3. charged, that defend-
ant uttered a counterfeit half-crown to J. F., and that at the
time he so uttered it, he had about him another counterfeit
half-crown; but it did not conclude with averring that he
was a common utterer of false money: the Judges held that
such averment was unnecessary, and that the indictment
was sufficient to warrant the greater punishment of the 3d
section of the statute. Rex v. Smith,
2. An indictment on the 15 G. 2. c. 28. for uttering after a
conviction for a double offence, need not aver that defendant
was adjudged to be a common utterer: it is sufficient if it
states that he was tried and convicted of uttering to A.,
and of uttering on the same day to B., and adjudged to be
imprisoned a year. Rex v. Booth.
3. An indictment for robbery stated, that it was in a field
near the King's highway: the robbery was proved, but not
near any highway: The Judges held that the allegation of
its being in a field near the highway was immaterial, for the
3 & 4. W. & M. c.9., took away clergy, let the robbery be
where it might. Rex v. Wardle.
Rex v. Pye, 9. notis.
Rex v. Johnstone, 10. notis.
4. Where an indictment described a bank note as signed by A. H. for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, conviction held bad, there being no evidence of A. H.'s signature. Describing a bank note " as a certain note commonly called a bank note" is not such a description as will warrant a conviction on 2 G. 2. c. 25. for stealing it. Rex v. Craven.
Page 14 5. An indictment against a master for not providing necessaries for his apprentice, ought to state that the apprentice was of tender years, and unable to provide for itself. Rex v. Friend, et ur.
6. An indictment on 39 G. 3. c.85., must state whose the property embezzled was, as in other cases of larceny; stating that the prisoner took it into his possession by virtue of his employment, or on account of his master, is insufficient. Rex v. M'Gregor.
7. 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
signing it had authority to sign it. Rex v. Wilcox.
8. Indictment on 39 G.3. c. 85. Held, that it was sufficient
to state in the conclusion of the indictment that the prisoner
feloniously did steal, take, &c. though the word feloniously
was not inserted in the former part of the indictment before
the word embezzle. Rex v. Crighton.
9. Indictment on 30 G. 2. c. 24. held to be bad, on the ground that the instrument given in evidence was not as stated, an order for money. Rex v. Cartwright.
10. An indictment for disposing and putting away forged
bank notes, need not state to whom the note was disposed
of; it is sufficient to state the prisoner disposed of the note
with intent to defraud the Bank; he knowing it at the time
to be forged. Rex v. Holden and others.
11. An indictment on the 48 G. 3. c. 129., need not negative
the force or fear necessary to constitute robbery; and if it
does not, though it may appear that there was such force or
fear, the punishment enjoined by the 48 G. 3. may be in-
flicted.
Rex v. Robinson and another. 12. An indictment for a common law felony must contain a "contra pacem.” So must an indictment for stealing articles, the stealing of which is made felony by statutes;
|