JOHN HEVEY'S CASE. At the Old Bailey in January Seffion, 1782, John Hevey was indicted on the ftatute 2 Geo. II. cap. 25, before Mr. Juftice Abhurt, for forging an indorsement on the back of a Bill of Exchange, in the name of " B. M'Carthy," with intent to defraud William Mafters and Edward Beauchamp. There was a fecond count, for uttering and publishing a forged indorsement, in the name of " B. M'Carthy," with the like intention. "N° 59.30:00:0. Bath Bank, Nov. 19, 1781. "Thirty-one days after fight, pay Mr. Bernard M'Car"thy, or order, thirty pounds, value received, for Smith, "Moore, and Co. "To Ric. Beatty and Co. 66 Jer. Connell," (Acc. R. B. and Co.) It appeared in evidence, that the prifoner, by the name of John Hevey, had procured the copper plate to be engraved from which the fkeleton of the bill in queftion had been printed. In the month of November, 1781, the prifoner went to the shop of the profecutors, who were pawn-brokers in Holborn, bargained for a gold watch, at the price of eighteen guineas, and offered the Bath Bank Bill above defcribed, in payment. Mr. Beauchamp examined the bill, and fhewing the indorsement to the prifoner, asked him if his name was M'Carthy. The prifoner replied, "Yes, "Sir it is. You have no occafion to be afraid, it is bet"ter than a note of the Bank of England; it is a very good bill, and I have indorfed it." Mr. Beauchamp, however, refused to take it, until he had fent his fervant with it iuto Great St. Helens's, to know whether the acceptance Richard Beatty and Co. was genuine. The fervant took the bill according to the directions, and received information from a gentleman who anfwered to the name of Beatty, that it was a good bill, and would be regularly paid when due. In confequence of this information, the profecutor let the prifoner have the watch, gave him 117. 25. in exchange, and a bill of parcels, with a receipt in the name of M'Carthy for the 187. 18s. od. The bill was not paid, nor were there any fuch perfons as Smith, Moore, and Co. to to be found at Bath. The prifoner and Beatty were ap prehended, and committed for the fuppofed forgery. In the prifoner's cuftody were found a number of notes, of different dates and fums, indorfed in the name " B. M'Carthy;" but it was pofitively fworn, that these indorsements, as well as that on the back of the bill in queftion, were in the handwriting of one Bernard M'Carty, who lived in St. Giles's, and had abfconded. The learned Judge directed the Jury upon the points of law; and they found a verdict, "That the indorsement "B. M'Carthy was in the hand-writing of a perfon of "that name, but that John Hevey, the prifoner at the bar, "had paffed himself upon the prosecutor Mr. Beauchamp, "as being B. M'Carthy the indorfer." As this finding involved a queftion of law which had never precifely received a judicial determination, the question was referred to the confideration of the TWELVE JUDGES, Whether, if a man produces the real fignature of a perfon exifting, purporting to be the indorfement of fuch perfon, and falfely declares that he is the identical person whose indorsement it purports to be, it amounts, in point of law, to the offence of forgery? On the first day of Hilary Term, 1782, eleven of the Judges conferred upon this cafe; and at the Old Bailey in February Seffion following, Mr. Juftice Gould delivered their unanimous opinion, That it did not amount to forgery. The ftatute 2 Geo. II. cap. 25, fays, "That if any perfon "fhall falfely make, or caufe to be falfely made, any indorfement, &c. they fhall be guilty of felony." There must therefore be a falfe making to conftitute the crime of forgery; but, in the prefent cafe, the Jury have found that the indorsement was truly made, by a real perfon whofe name it purported to be. The prifoner however was detained, and at the fame Seffion Hevey and Beatty were indicted, with M'Carthy, for the confpiracy, and convicted. THE THE LAWYER'S AND MAGISTRATE'S MAGAZINE, For DECEMBER, 1790. CASE S In the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TRINITY HOME v. Earl of CAMDEN and Others. JUDGMENT delivered by Lord Loughborough in the above Caufe, June 23, 1790. TH HIS Cafe came before the Court on a fuggestion for a prohibition to the Lords Commiffioners of Appeals in Prize Causes, who had iffued a monition to the Prize Agent to bring in the proceeds that were in his hands from the capture of the fhip Hoogfkarpel, which was taken by a squadron of the King's fhips under the command of Commodore Johnstone, having a detachment of the King's troops aboard commanded by General Meadows, on the expedition against the Cape of Good Hope, in the year 1781. Secret inftructions were given by his Majesty to the Commanders in Chief, that all the booty which fhould be gained by the joint operation of the army and navy, at the attack of that fettlement, fhould be divided in two shares, VOL. II. between R between the land and fea forces. The attack was not made; but the fquadron, while the troops were on board, took the faid fhip and cargo belonging to the enemy, in an open unfortified bay, at a distance from the destined object of attack. This fhip and cargo being condemned as lawful prize, the produce of it was to be diftributed according to the provifions of the Prize Act, 21 Geo. III. cap. 15, and the fubfequent proclamation. It was contended that under that A&, a legal right was vested in the officers and crews of the fquadron to their fhares, on the condemnation as lawful prize. Therefore, where the Court of Lords Commiffioners of Appeals from the Admiralty, had issued a monition to the Prize Agent, to bring in the proceeds which were in his hands, a prohibition was granted to that Court, because the monition was contrary to the legal vested right of the officers and crews of the fquadron. LORD LOUGHBOROUGH. In this cafe the declaration ftates, first as a propofition of law, that the expofition of the ftatute laws of this realm, appertains to the King's Courts of Record. It then recites the Prize-Act, which paffed upon the war against the States General, and his Majefty's proclamation for a diftribution of prizes, under the authority given by that Act. It then flates the appointment of Commodore Johnstone, as commander of a fquadron, of the plaintiff as captain of a fhip in that fquadron, and of General Meadows as commander in chief of the land forces, to be employed on an expedition against the Cape of Good Hope, a colony of the States-General in Africa, and fecret inftructions given by his Majesty, directed to the two commanding officers, Commodore Johnstone and General Meadows, in order to prevent difputes which might arise between the fleet and army. By thefe inftructions it was provided, that fuch booty as fhould be taken from the enemy by the joint-operation of the fleet and army, at the attack of the Cape, fhould be distributed among the land and seaforces into two shares; the share of the navy to be divided according to the regulations eftablished for the fervice. The declaration then ftates, that the fquadron, with the landforces on board, proceeded upon the faid expedition, but did not make any attack upon the Cape of Good Hope. It then states, that upon the 21ft of July, the fquadron, with the ship of which the plaintiff was captain, having the land-forces on board, did, in a certain open unfortified bay, called Saldahna Bay, at a great diftance from the Cape of Good Hope, attack and feize, as prize, the ship Hoogfkarpell and cargo, the property of the fubjects of the States-General. The The declaration then ftates a libel in the High Court of Admiralty, by his Majefty's Proctor, for the condemnation of the faid fhip as lawful prize, being taken by Commodore Johnstone and his fquadron, and a fentence thereupon upon the 4th of September, 1782, condemning the ship and cargo as good and lawful prize generally, referving the question who were captors; and afterwards, upon the matter reserved, on the 28th of May, 1785, an interlocutory order of the Court of Admiralty, pronouncing for the interest of the army generally, agreeably to the fpirit of his Majesty's instructions, and decreeing the distribution of the prize according to fuch inftructions, in equal shares. The declaration then proceeds to ftate an appeal from this laft decree upon the 30th of June 1786, and a decree of the Court of Appeals, reverfing the last-mentioned decree of the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, and pronouncing the thip and cargo to have been taken by the conjoint operation of his Majefty's fhips employed on an expedition against the Cape of Good Hope, under the command of Commodore Johnftone, and of the army under the command of General Meadows upon the fame expedition, and condemning the ship, with the unclaimed cargo, as good and lawful prize to the King. The declaration then ftates, that Edward Taylor and John Pafley were duly appointed agents by the officers and crews of the feveral fhips companies of the fquadron, and as fuch agents, foon after the decree of the 4th of September, 1782, caused the ship and her cargo to be fold, received the produce, diftributed part thereof among the officers and crews of the fquadron, and that the refidue remained in the hands of Pafley, and ought to be diftributed to the captors aforefaid, purfuant to the ftatute and proclamation. It then ftates, that the plaintiff Home brought his action in the Court of King's Bench, of trefpafs on the cafe 'on promifes, againft Pafley the furviving agent (Taylor being flated to be dead), for damages for the non-payment of his fhare. It then ftates as a propofition of law, that the Commiffioners of Appeals in Prize Caules, have no authority by law to take out of the hands of any agent fo appointed, the money arifing from any fale of prizes, finally adjudged lawful prize to his Majefty in a Court of Admiralty. That the Commiffioners of Appeals, contriving to take out of the hands of Pafley the money, and to prevent the plaintiff recovering at law his damages, did, on the 3d of May, 1788, iffue a monition to Pafley to bring in an account of fales, together with the proceeds. This is the whole of the declaration. The defendant traverfes the laft allegation of pro |