But if the drawee accepts two parts of the same bill and they get into separate hands, he is liable upon both parts. Houldsworth v. Hunter, 10 B. & C., 449. Perreira v. Jopp, 10 B. & C., 450n. 287. If the drawee pays one part of the bill with a forged indorsement, he is still liable to pay the real holder of another part. Cheap v. Harley, 3 T. R., 127. 288. If a foreign bill is refused acceptance or payment it is necessary in order to charge the drawer to have it protested (a). But a protest is not necessary on a foreign promissory note (b). (a) Borough v. Perkins, 2 Ld. Raym., 993. Rogers v. Stephens, 2 T. R., 713. Gale v. Walsh, 5 T. R., 239. Orr v. Maginnis, 7 East., 359. Vandewall v. Tyrrell, M. & Mal., 87. Geralopulo v. Wieler, 10 C. B., 690. (b) Bonar v Mitchell, 5 Ex., 415. On the Forgery of Bills and Notes. 289. Forgery is defined to be the making, altering, or misapplying any writing with intent to defraud. Forging bills or notes or any part of them, as well as uttering them, knowing them to be forged, are each felonies, punishable by penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than five (1) years -or by imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. 24 & 25 Vict. (1861), c. 98, s. 22. (1) 27 & 28 Vict. (1864), c. 47, s. 2. 290. If several persons make different parts of the instrument, they are each chargeable with forging the entire instrument, though they may be ignorant of each other's proceedings. Rex v. Bingley, R. & R., C. C., 446. Rex v. Kirkwood, 1 Mood., C. C., 304. Rex v. Dade, 1 Mood., C. C., 307. 291. The offence of forgery is complete without any publication or uttering. Elliott's case, 1 Leach, C. C., 175. : Crocker's case, R. & R., 292. Altering the date of a Bill of Exchange after acceptance (a) altering the place where a note is made payable (b): or altering the sum for which a bill or note is made payable (c), are forgeries. (a) Master v. Miller, 4 T. R., 320. 669. (b) Rex v. Treble, 2 Taunt., 328. (c) Rex v. Post, R. & R., C. & C., 101. Rex v. Atkinson, 7 C. & P., 293. If a person is authorised to fill up a bill or note with one sum it is forgery to fill it up with a larger sum, or even a less sum, and apply the instrument to purposes different from his instructions. Rex v. Hart, Mood., C. C., 486. The Queen v. Bateman, 1 Cox, C. C., 186. The Queen v. Wilson, 1 Den., C. C., 284. 294. To write one's own name with the intention that it should pass as the signature of another person of the same name is forgery. Mead v. Young, 4 T. R., 28. Rex v. Parkes, 2 Leach, C. C., 775. 295. A person having obtained genuine signatures wrote above one a promissory note; and on the other side of the other a promissory note payable to that person, and so changed the signature into an indorsement ; was convicted of forging the note and the indorsement. Rex v. Hales, 17 State Tr., 161, 209, 229. 296. Using the genuine signature of one person in any way so as to make it appear that it is the signature of another person of the same name is forgery. Reg. v. Blenkinsop, 1 Den., C. C., 276. Reg. v. Mitchell, 1 Den., 297. Discounting bills or drawing drafts with fictitious names on them is forgery. Dunn's case, 1 Leach, 57. Bolland's case, 1 Leach, 83. Lockett's case, 1 Leach, 94. Taft's case, 1 Leach, 172. Shephard's case, 1 Leach, 226. Reg. v. Wardell, 3 F. & F., 82. 298. Signing a bill or note by procuration for another person fraudulently, and without lawful authority; and uttering such a bill knowing that it is so signed by procuration without lawful authority, is felony, punishable with penal servitude for not more than fourteen and not less than five years: or imprisonment for not more than two years and with or without hard labour and solitary confinement. 24 & 25 Vict. (1861), c. 98, s. 24. 299. If the holder of a bill or note has come into possession of it by the means of any forged signature, he cannot recover on it, or retain it against the true owner. A debtor who pays a holder who derives his title through forgery is not discharged. In Robarts v. Tucker (16 Q. B., 575), MAULE, J., said that in his opinion if a banker is called upon to pay an acceptance of his customer's, bearing several indorsements, he is entitled to reasonable time to inquire into their genuiness and the title of the presenter. A banker who issues cheques to his customer payable to order is not bound to inquire into the genuineness of the payee's indorsement. But any person who obtains the money from the banker by means of a forged indorsement is liable to the true owner of the cheque. $ 225. § 88-To the cases mentioned in this paragraph add Bobbett v. Pinekett, Ex. Div., May 5, 1876. 300. A person who discounts a forged bill or note may recover the money back. Jones v. Ryde, 5 Taunt., 488. Bruce v. Bruce, 5 Taunt., 495. Gurney v. Womersly, 4 E. & B., 133. Wilkinson v. Johnson, 3 B. & C., 428. 301. Where bankers paid forged acceptances of their customers, and did not discover the mistake the same day, they were held not entitled to demand it back. In Cocks v. Masterman, the Court expressly refrained from giving an opinion as to whether they might have done so if the demand had been made the same day. Smith v. Mercer, 6 Taunt., 76. Cocks v. Masterman, 9. B. & C., 902. Mather v. Lord Maidstone, 18 C. B., 273. These seem to be the chief points relating to bills and notes, which occur in daily practice, and are most necessary to be known. Other proceedings upon such instruments will be in charge of the banker's solicitor, for which we must refer to the larger treatises on the subject. NOTE. A Bill is now passing through Parliament to amend the Law relating to Crossed Cheques; we have, therefore, omitted all notice of crossed cheques. As soon as the Bill has become law, an account of it will be furnished to purchasers of this work. INDEX. ACCEPTANCE presentation for, see Presentation for Acceptance. must be in writing on the bill includes delivery, or notification to the parties drawee holding funds of the acceptor now liable without accept- ance VOL. PAQE ii., 519 ii., 519 ii., 519 when once completed is irrevocable. ii., 519 cross acceptances for mutual accommodation what acceptor of a bill with a fictitious name undertakes to do ii., 520 is liable if accustomed to pay bills drawn upon him by partners, ACCEPTANCE SUPRA PROTEST may be several, for honour of different parties holder not bound to take what holder must do after what admissions acceptor supra protest bound by what parties he discharges cannot indorse the bill over ACCEPTILATION meaning of, or RELEASE Roman law regarding distinction between, and real bills explanation of true danger of quoted by Mr. Holroyd in case of Lawrence, Mortimer, and his absurd doctrines on paper currency ESCHINES SOCRATES dialogue about Wealth, attributed to. says that sciences (i. e., labour) are wealth his contradictory doctrines on paper currency accommodation, may be altered before issue by whom does not extinguish the debt what rights transferee of altered bill has when giver of renewed bill for altered bill not liable. APPROPRIATION OF PAYMENTS debtor may impute payment |