compromife, with fome degree of warmth I faid, I cannot Mr. Reid, confent to any compromife, or any thing like a compromife of any fort whatever; nor can I advife my Lord Dungarvan to enter into any negociation towards a compromise. Mr. John King, and others of his Lordship's friends, were prefent at the time: we told Mr. Reid, we fhould withdraw into the next room; but refusing any idea of a compromise under the moft pofitive terms. The pro

fecutrix came into that room and I told her, "" we had re"tired hither for the purpose of private bufinefs," and faid, "I defire that you will withdraw." The profecutrix then faid, "that fhe had been ordered there by the Justice, and "that there she would stay," and accordingly fat herself down. I then defired the constable, to turn the woman out of the room. There was no fort of compromise made by me or Lord Dungarvan. The profecutrix in her first examination did not fay the coachman had driven her to Berners Street, but had driven her ftrait to Rathbone Place.

George Gibbons fworn.

2. I believe, you attended Mr. Reid's Office on laft Thursday Morning.

A. I did, Sir, and took down in writing the answers to feveral queftions put to Mrs. Weldon, after the examination taken by the Magiftrate was completed. The magistrate permitted Mr. Chambre to ask thefe questions, but would not permit them to be returned as part of his examination.

Mr. Chambre interrogated her as to the time when she first perceived that the had lost her money; to which the answered, I perceived that I had loft my money on offering to give the link-boy fome gratuity, but did not charge Lord Dungarvan till I was half way home. This question and anfwer were read to the prosecutrix, and she was asked whether they were corre&? her anfwer was, that they were correctly taken down.

Jury. We are fatisfied.

Baron Thompson-I have been perfectly satisfied for a confiderable time, but, as it was your province to fay when you were fatisfied, I did not chufe to interfere.

The Jury found the verdict NOT GUILTY.

Mr. Baron Thompson then addreffed Lord Dungarvan in

thefe words:

My Lord Dungarvan, it is but justice to you to fay, that it is impoffible for you to go from this bar with the leaft imputation on your character. Of the imprudence that brought you into the fituation I fay nothing, as you yourself feem to be perfectly fenfible of it.

CROWN.

CROWN CASES.

EDWARD TUFT'S CASE.

At the Lent Affizes for the County of Leicester, 1777, Edward Tuft was tried before Mr. Juftice Nares, for forging an indorsement on a Bill of Exchange. The Jury found the prifoner Guilty; but the learned and humane Judge, cautious of paffing fentence of death in a cafe which admitted of doubt, fubmitted to the confideration of the TWELVE JUDGES, Whether, upon the following state of facts, the conviction was proper?

The Bill of Exchange was the property of one William Wetheral, out of whofe pocket it had been picked or lost, with other things, at Leicester Races. The prifoner had the very fame night endeavoured to negociate it at Leicester; but being difappointed, he proceeded to Market-Harborough, where he bought a horfe of one John Ingram, the landlord of the inn, and offered him this bill to change. The landlord not having cash fufficient in the houfe, carried it to a banker's in the town, where the clerk told him that it was, very good paper, for that he knew the payee who had indorfed it, and that if he (the landlord) would put his name on the back of it, it should be immediately discounted. The landlord, however, not knowing the perfon from whom he had received it, refufed to indorfe it; but told the clerk, that the gantleman was then at his houfe, and he would go and fetch him: accordingly he went to the prifoner, who accompanied him to the banker's. The clerk. then told the prifoner, that it was the rule of their shop never to take a discount bill, unless the perfon offering fuch bill indorfed it; and therefore if he (the prifoner) would indorfe it, it should be difcounted. The prifoner immediately indorfed it by the name of " John Williams," which was not his own name, and the banker's clerk, after dedu&ing the discount, gave him the cafh for it. The prifoner, in his defence, faid he had found it.

The JUDGES were unanimously of opinion, That this was a forgery; for although the fictitious fignature was not neceffary to his obtaining the money, and his intent in writing a falfe name was probably only done to conceal the hands through which the bill had paffed, yet it was

a fr

a fraud both on the owner of the bill, and on the perfon who discounted it. The one loft the chance of tracing his property, and the other loft the benefit of a real indorfer, if, by accident, the prior indorsements should have failed.

ELLIOT's CASE.

James Elliot was indicted at Maidstone Affizes on 21fb of July, 1777, for forging a Bank Note,, with, the name of Thomas Thompson thereunto fubfcribed, purporting to bear date the 20th of June, 1775, and to have been figned by one Thomas Thompson, for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, for the payment of the fum of FIPTY POUNDS to Mr. Jofeph Crooke or bearer, on demand; the tenor of which faid Note is as followeth, that is to fay,

66

No 17.73- I promise to pay to Mr. Jofeph Crooke, or bearer, on demand, the fum of FIFTY

The fecond count charged it to be "a certain note in the form of a Bank-Note." The third count charged it to be

66.

a certain promiffory note for the payment of money." There were alfo other counts, in which the offence was charged to have been committed with an intention, to defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank of England.

This indictment was admitted to be framed on the 31 Geo. II. cap. 22, which extends the subjects of forgery enumerated in the 2 Geo. II. cap. 25, to all corporations.

It appeared in evidence, that the prifoner had applied, under the fictitious name of Pearce, to one Mary Smith, who ufually made the moulds for the Bank of England paper, to make him a pair of fmall moulds, finer than those which she made for the use of the Bank; but the refused to execute his order. That about two months previous to finding the indictment, the prifoner delivered to a Mr. Robert Reyland, a copper-plate printer, two copper-plates and a quantity of fine paper, dering that he would ftrike off two dozen im

preffions

preffions from each plate, the one of which was engraved for the fum of Twenty Pounds, the other for the fum of FIFTY POUNDS, both of them payable by the Governor! and Company of the Bank of England. Mr. Reyland ftruck off the impreffions, porfuant to the order, and re-delivered). them, with the plates, to the prifoner. When the prifoner was apprehended; impreffions of the above defcription were found upon him, and produced in Court, together with the copper-plates which had been found in confequence of infor mation derived from him. Among the printed impreffions found upon the perfon of the prifoner, was the forged inftrument stated in the indictment. The plate from which it had been ftruck off was identified by Mr. Reyland; and the Officers of the Bank proved, that it was in every respec fimilar to a Bank-Note, except, first, that the number was not filled up: fecondly, that the word POUNDS was omitted in the body of the note: thirdly, that the texture of the paper was rather thicker than that used by the Bank: and fourthly, that in the fabrick of it the water-mark, viz. the words BANK OF ENGLAND were not inserted : but they faid, that a Bank-Note, with the like omiffion of the word POUNDS in the body of it, being regular in other refpects, would be paid by the ufage of the Bank, after it had paffed the Examiner's office. A real Bank-Note of the fame date and tenor, except as above excepted, was produced in evidence.

Mr. Morgan, the prisoner's Counsel, contended, firft, That the word POUNDS being omitted in the body of the note, it was not a note for the payment of money; or if it was for the payment of money, it was totally uncertain what coin, whether pounds or fhillings, and that upon fuch an uncertainty in a declaration, the plaintiff would be nonfuited.

To this objection it was anfwered, That the tenor of the note imported a promife to pay fome money by a Company whofe peculiar traffic is in caft, and whether for pounds or fhillings would make no difference in the offence.

Secondly, That this was no forgery upon the Corporation of the Bank of England, because the water-mark was omitted in the Note, which was effential to the Notes of the Company; and therefore it bore no resemblance to their Notes, and could not be a fraud upon them.

To this it was anfwered, That, whatever weight this objection might have upon the count for forging a Bank Note, it had none upon the count charging it to be a note for the payment of money. It was clearly to be paid by

that

that corporation, and a fraud upon them. A counterfeit need not be a critical counterpart. If made malâ fide fo fimilar as to have an aptnefs to impofe, it is fufficient. The water-mark is not of the effence of a Bank-Note, fince the Company are not obliged by any law to ufe it. They may drop it or use it as they fee occafion. It is fufficient that the tenor of the note imports a promise from the corporation of the Bank to pay. The cafe of a forgery by one Vaughan, tried at O. B. in 1768, was cited, in which moft of the letters of the water-mark were omitted in the fubftance of the paper; but as no authentic or accurate ftate of the cafe was produced, no ftrefs was laid upon it.

.

The learned Judge left it with the Jury to confider whether the word FIFTY imported POUNDS; and the Jury found the prifoner Guilty upon the count which charged him with forging" a certain promiffory note for the payment of money, with intention to defraud the Bank of England, and acquitted him of the rest of the indictment.

"

Mr. Morgan, the prifoner's Counsel, moved the following objections in arrest of judgment.

Firft, It is charged in the count upon which the prifoner is found guilty, to be a note for the payment of money; but in reciting the tenor of it, it appears to be for the payment of FIFTY, and does not fay POUNDS. The recital therefore materially varies from the charge, by leaving out a defcription of the coin, whether pounds or fhillings, for which the note purports to be drawn, and no other coin can be confidered as money.

Secondly, That it cannot be with an intention to defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The 31 Geo. II. cap. 2. §.78, whereon the count upon which he is convicted is grounded, relates, and the other statutes relate to notes for the payment of money; but the tenor of the note fet forth is not for the payment of money, and therefore not within them. The note produced in evidence ap. pears intended to refemble a Bank-Note; but all BankNotes have the words BANK OF ENGLAND vifible in the fubflance of the paper, and the count charges the intention to defraud the Bank. There is not the least appearance of the words BANK OF ENGLAND in the, fubftance of the note and therefore does not resemble the notes of that corporation.

In Mich. Term, 18 Geo. III. the Judges, at Serjeants or Symond's Inn, were unanimoufly of opinion, That the verdia was legal.

Row