for the purpose of uttering. Held, that the woman could not be convicted of the second offence of having other bad money in her possession at the time, on the evidence of her associating with a man not present at the uttering, but having large quantities of bad money about him for the purpose of uttering. Rex v. Else and another. Page 142 11. Uttering a forged bill importing to be payable to the drawer's order with intent to defraud, is a complete offence, though there be no indorsement upon it importing to be the drawer's. Rex v. Wicks.

149

12. The offence of disposing and putting away forged banknotes is complete, though the person to whom they were disposed of was an agent for the Bank to detect utterers, and applied to the prisoners 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.

154

13. Uttering a forged stock receipt to a person who employed the prisoner to buy stock to that amount and advanced the money, is sufficient evidence of an intent to defraud that person; and the oath of the person to whom the receipt was uttered, that he believes the prisoner had no such intent, will not repel the presumption of an intent to defraud. Rex v. Sheppard.

169

14. Having counterfeit silver in possession, with intent to utter it as good, is no offence; for there is no criminal act done. Rex v. Heath.

Rex v. Stewart.

184

288

15. Showing a man an instrument the uttering of which would be criminal, though with an intent of raising a false idea in him of the party's substance, is not an uttering or publishing within 13 G. 3. c.79. Nor will the leaving it afterwards sealed up, with the person to whom it was shewn, under cover, that he may take charge of it, as being too valuable to be carried about, be an uttering or publishing. Rex v. Shukard.

200

16. Delivering a box, containing among other things, forged stamps to the party's own servant, to be forwarded by a carrier to a customer in the country, is an uttering. Rex v. Collicott. 17. The offence of uttering a forged stamp will be complete, although at the time of uttering, certain parts of the stamp

212

UTTERING-continued.

are concealed, but all the parts that are visible are like a genuine stamp, though the part concealed is unlike a genuine stamp. Ibid. and Rex v. Collicott.

Page 229 18. If several plan the uttering of a forged order for payment of money, and it is uttered accordingly by one in the absence of the others, the actual utterer is alone the principal. Rex v. Badcock and others. 249 19. 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 20. Procuring base coin with intent to utter it as good, is a misdemeanor. Rex v. Fuller and another.

308

21. 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.

WALES.

455

The 26 Hen. 8. c. 6. s. 6. which makes felonies in Wales triable in the next adjoining English county, extends to felonies created since the 26 Hen. 8. Rex v. Wyndham.

WARRANT.

197

Killing an officer will be murder, though he has no warrant, and was not present when the felony was committed, but takes the party upon a charge only; and though that charge does not in terms specify all the particulars necessary to constitute the felony. Rex v. Ford.

WEAPON.

See OFFENSIVE WEAPON.

WIFE.

See HUSBAND and Wife.

WILLS.

329

On indictment for forging a will, probate of that will unrepealed, is not conclusive evidence of its validity, so as to be

a bar to the prosecution. Rex v. Buttery and another. 342 Rex v. Gibson.

343, notis.

WITNESS.

1. When a witness upon a trial gives evidence contradictory
to facts contained in a deposition made by such witness in a
former proceeding in the same case, the Judge may order
such deposition to be read, in order to impeach the credit
of the witness. Rex v. Oldroyd.
Page 88
2. Forgery. The party by whom the forged instrument pur-
ports to have been made, while he has an interest in invali-
dating such instrument, is incompetent to prove any fact
which contributes to the proof of the forgery. Rex v.
Crocker.

97

3. Held that a person who had been convicted of grand lar-
ceny, sentenced to transportation for seven years, confined
in the hulks, and discharged at the end of seven years, was
a competent witness, such confinement operating as a statute
pardon; and that having escaped twice during such con-
finement for a few hours each time, did not destroy the effect
of it. Rex v. Badcock and others.

248

4. A release from the holder of a bill of exchange to the sup-
posed acceptor, will make him a competent witness to prove
the forgery in an indictment against the drawer, the drawer
having received value for the bill from such holder. Rex
v. Peacock.

See Rex v. Young.

278

280, notis.

5. Upon an indictment against the payee for uttering a
forged acceptance, the first indorsee is a competent witness,
though he has only advanced part of the amount of the bill,
and though he releases, during the trial, the person in whose
name the acceptance is forged. Held also, that his release
makes the supposed acceptor a competent witness. Rex v.
Mott.

435

6. Upon an indictment for forging or uttering a power of
attorney to sell and transfer stock in the funds, the person
whose name is forged is a competent witness for the Crown,
if the stock has not been transferred, and he has given notice
to the Bank disavowing the power. Especially if it be
previously proved that though there is an attestation import-
ing that he executed, in the presence of two witnesses, he
did not so execute in their presence; the bank act not au-
thorising any transfer under a power of attorney, unless it is
attested by two witnesses. And it will make no difference
whether the stock was the property of the person whose

WITNESS - continued.

name is forged; or whether he was a mere trustee. Rex
v. Waite.

WOOD.

Page 505