1805. STORY'S Case. In Easter term, 11th May, 1805, the case was taken into consideration at a meeting of ALL THE JUDGES, when they were of opinion that it did not appear to be a forgery, the prisoner having signed his own name, which was not the same name as that of the person to whom the note was payable. And on the other objection, they held that he was properly convicted of obtaining the money by a false pretence, because, by presenting the order for payment, and signing at the post-office, he represented himself to Mrs. Rayner as the person named in the note. 1805. 18 Eliz. c. 5. Held that a party is liable REX v. RICHARD GOTLEY. THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. JUSTICE LE BLANC at the Shrewsbury Lent assizes, in the year 1805, upon to the punish- an indictment on the statute 18 Elizabeth, c. 5. s. 4. for comment prescrib-pounding an offence against the highway act, 13 G. 3. c.84. s. 13. ed by this act, for taking the and taking a sum of money without process, to prevent an action penalty imposed by a penal being brought, without the order or consent of any of His Majesstatute though ty's courts at Westminster, and without lawful authority. tion or pro there is no ac- The indictment contained several counts: some of them stated cceding for the the party of whom the money was taken to have committed the penalty. offence, whereby the penalty was incurred; others of them stated only that the prisoner compounded and took the money, by and upon colour and pretence of a certain matter of offence pretended to have been committed. (a) Shrop (a) The first count of the indictment was to the following effect: shire, (to wit). The jurors, &c. that Richard Gotley, late of, &c. being an evil disposed person, and not regarding the statute in such case made and provided, nor fearing the penalties therein contained heretofore, to wit, on the 19th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1804, with force and arms, at Hales Owen, in the county of Salop, by and upon colour and pretence of a certain matter of offence then and there pretended to have been committed by one Edward Round against a certain penal law, (that is to say) by and upon colour and pretence that heretofore, to wit, on the 30th day of October, in the year aforesaid, a certain waggon, of which the said Edward Round was then the owner, having the sole or bottom of the fellies of the wheels of less breadth or guage than six inches, did pass and was drawn upon a certain turnpike road It was satisfactorily proved that Edward Round, the person named in the indictment, from whom the prisoner was charged to have taken money by way of composition, had incurred a penalty of 51. under the statute 13 G. 3. c. 84. s. 13. by suffering his waggon to be drawn on a turnpike road by more than four horses, he being the owner; and that the prisoner had received from him 51. 2s. (the two shillings over being to have been returned) by way of composition, to prevent any legal proceedings; the prisoner having applied to Round for the purpose, and demanded the 51. as a penalty which Round had so incurred. And it further appeared, that no process had been sued out, and that no information had been laid before any magistrate. LE BLANC, J. respited the judgment, upon a doubt whether the offence was within the statute 18 Eliz. c. 5. so as to subject the prisoner to the specific punishment prescribed by that act, of being set in the pillory for two hours; inasmuch as no action. or proceeding was depending in which the order or consent of any court in Westminster-hall for a composition could be obtained. 1805. GOTLEY'S Case. leading to Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, with more than four horses, to wit, with six horses, contrary to the form and effect of a certain statute made and passed in the thirteenth year of the reign of his present majesty, entituled, "An act to explain, amend, and reduce it into one act of parliament, the general laws now in being for regulating the turnpike roads in that part of Great Britain called England, and for other purposes," unlawfully, wilfully, and corruptly, did compound and agree with the said Edward Round, who was surmised to have offended against the same statute in manner aforesaid, for the said pretended offence; and did thereupon then and there, to wit, on the said 19th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1804, aforesaid, at Hales Owen aforesaid, without process, take of and from the said Edward Round a certain sum of money, to wit, the sum of two guineas, that is to say, the sum of two pounds and two shillings, of lawful money of Great Britain; and divers, to wit, three bank of England notes for the payment of the sum of one pound each, the said notes being then and there of a large value, to wit, of the value of three pounds of like lawful money, as and by way of composition for the said pretended offence, and in order to prevent an action being brought against him, the said Edward Round, for and in respect of the same, without the order or consent of any or either of his majesty's courts at Westminster, and without any lawful authority for so doing, to the great hindrance and obstruction of public justice, in contempt of our said lord the king and his laws, to the evil and pernicious example, &c. against the form of the statute, &c. against the peace, &c. 1805. GOTLEY'S In Easter term, 11th of May, 1805, the case was taken into consideration at a meeting of ALL THE JUDGES, when they were all of opinion that the conviction was right; and that the statute 18 Eliz. c. 5. applies to all cases of taking a penalty incurred or pretended to be incurred without leave of a court at Westminster, or without judgment or conviction. (a) 1805. payable to the REX v. JOHN BIRKETT. Forging a bill THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON GRAHAM, at the prisoner's own spring assizes at Lancaster, in the year 1805, upon a charge of order, and ut- forgery. The first count of the indictment charged that the tering it without indorse- prisoner on, &c. at, &c. forged a bill of exchange, as follows: ment as a security for a debt, is a complete offence. "No 28 2310. £35. 3s. 5d. Preston Bank, 16th August, 1804. "Two months after date, pay to the order of Mr. John Birkett, thirty-five pounds, three shillings, and fivepence, value received. "ATHERTON, GREAVES, & DENISON. "To Joseph Denison, Esq. & Co. London. "Entd. R. N." with intent to defraud the bank of Atherton & Co. The second count was for uttering and publishing the same with the like intent. And the third and fourth counts differed in laying an intent to defraud one Matthew Yates. The fifth count (which was particularly adapted to the facts of the case,) charged that the prisoner having in his possession a paper whereon was written or printed to the following tenor: (a) As to the punishment of the pillory, see now 56 G. 5. c. 158. did forge, &c. in and upon the said paper as follows: "2310." "35. 3. 5." "16 August." "Two months after date." "Mr. John Birkett, thirty-five pounds, 3/5." "R. N." and by that means did forge, &c. a bill of exchange, as follows, (setting forth the bill as filled up) with intent to defraud the bank of Atherton & Co. The sixth count was for uttering and publishing the same with the like intent. And the seventh and eighth counts differed from the fifth and sixth, in laying an intent to defraud Matthew Yates. There were other counts laying an intent to defraud the drawers. By the evidence of the wife of Matthew Yates, the person mentioned in the indictment, it appeared that her husband resided at Liverpool, and kept an inn there, to which the prisoner came on the 14th of the preceding August with a horse, and continued boarding and lodging there until the 27th of the same month. Four or five days before the 27th a person came to the inn and took away the horse, and the witness then directed the waiter to carry the prisoner his bill; after which the prisoner came to her and gave her the bill of exchange, filled up as stated in the indictment, saying he hoped that would satisfy her for what he had had; to which she answered, “I dare say it will;" and took it from him and kept it until the 27th of August, when the prisoner was apprehended. Upon cross-examination, the witness said that the prisoner did not give the bill of exchange to her as payment; and that she knew she could make no use of the bill until the prisoner indorsed it: that he told her he did not wish to discount it, and would pay her in a few days without it. She further stated, that she considered herself as keeping the bill for the prisoner, and not for herself. It was further proved, that the prisoner had been a clerk in the house of Atherton & Co from July, 1803, to July 1804 and that it had been usual in that house to have cheques signed "Atherton, Greaves, & Dennison," kept in a drawer within the proper custody of two superior clerks, but accessible to the prisoner, who was sometimes permitted to sign them. It was also proved, that the whole of the written part of the bill of exchange. stated in the indictment, except the signature "Atherton, Greaves, & Dennison," was in the handwriting of the prisoner. The learned JUDGE left the case to the jury, telling them that the use made of the instrument when filled up by the prisoner, 1805. BIRKETT'S Case. 1805. BIRKETT'S though not indorsed, was conclusive evidence of the fraudulent intention, and proved as well the counts charging the actual forgery as those which charged the uttering, &c. knowing it to have been forged: and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. But the learned JUDGE afterwards respited the sentence, doubting whether he ought not have left the question of fraudulent intention more open to the jury; in which case they might have found that the prisoner did not mean to defraud any person, but, by paying his reckoning and taking back the bill, to make no further use of it. The case was taken into consideration at a meeting of all THE JUDGES in Easter term, 11th May, 1805, when they were of opinion, that the facts stated amounted to forgery, and with a fraudulent intent; the bill having been given to the landlady to obtain credit, though as a pledge only. 1805. When a wit ness upon a REX v. BENJAMIN OLDROYD. THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON GRAHAM, at the Lent trial gives evi- assizes for the county of York, in the year 1805, for the murder dence contra of his father at Sandal Magna, on the 12th of July, 1804, by dictory to facts contained in a strangling him. He was convicted upon circumstantial evidence, deposition but the learned JUDGE respited his execution upon an objection pressed upon him by the counsel for the prisoner, as to the admissibility in evidence of a deposition read upon the trial under same case, the the following circumstances. made by such witness in a former pro ceeding in the JUDGE may order such de The counsel for the prosecution at the close of their case observposition to be ed to the learned JUDGE, that they did not mean to call the mother read, in order credit of the witness. to impeach the of the prisoner, Elizabeth Oldroyd, strong suspicions having fallen upon her as having been an accomplice; but the JUDGE thought it right, in compliance with the usual practice (her name being on the back of the indictment, as having been examined before the grand jury,) to have her examined, which was accordingly done. The learned JUDGE observing upon this examination, that the evidence given by the woman was in favour of the prisoner, and materially different from her deposition taken before |