1

ROWLAND RIDGELAY'S CASE.

This was a cafe upon the 8 and 9 Will. III. cap. 26, drawn up and referved by Mr. Baron Hotham, at the Old Bailey in December Seffion, 1778, for the confideration of the Twelve Judges.

The indictment firft counted, That the prifoner not being a perfon employed in or for the Mint, &c. knowingly, feloniously, and traiterously had in his cuftody and poffeflion one PUNCHEON, made of iron and steel, in and upon which was made and impressed the figure, resemblance, and fimilitude of the head-fide of A SHILLING, without any lawful authority or fufficient excufe for that purpose, against the duty of his allegiance, &c.

The third count was the fame as the firft, for having in his poffeffion a puncheon, in and upon which was impreffed the figure, refemblance, and fimilitude of the head fide of

A GUINEA,

The fecond and fourth counts respectively charged, that the faid puncheon would imprefs and make the figure, refemblance, and fimilitude of the head-fide of a fbilling, and a guinea.

The words of the A&t of Parliament, as far as they relate to this question, are, that whofoever "shall knowingly make or mend, or begin, or proceed to make or mend, or affift in the making or mending of any puncheon, counterpuncheon, matrix, ftamp, die, pattern or mould, of steel, iron, filver, or other metal or metals, or of fpaud, or of fine founders earth, or fand, or of any other materials whatfoever, in or upon which there fhall be, or be made or impreffed, or which will make or imprefs the figure, ftamp, refemblance, or fimilitude of both or either of the fides or flats of any gold or filver coin current within this kingdom, &c. or fhall knowingly buy, fell, hide or conceal, or without lawful authority or fufficient excufe for that purpose, knowingly have in his, her, or their houses, cuftody or poffeffion, any fuch puncheon, counter-puncheon, matrix, stamp, die, or other tool or inftrument before mentioned, every fuch offender or offenders, their counfellors, procurers, aiders, and abettors, fhall be guilty of high treafon."

It

It was fully proved that the puncheons were found in the prifoner's lodging, and that he had them knowingly for the purposes of coining. The Jury accordingly found a general verdict Guilty; but as no cafe had been decided upon this branch of the Act, the Court wished to have the opi nion of the JUDGES upon the following evidence of the Engraver of the Mint, Whether these were or were not puncheons within the meaning of the Legislature?

"The puncheons found in the prifoner's cuftody are complete, and are hardened ready for ufe; but it is impoffible to fay that the fhillings which were found, were actually made with thefe puncheons. The impreffions are too feint to be exactly compared; but they have the appearance of having been made with them. The manner of making thefe puncheons is as follows: A true fhilling is cut away to the outline of the head; that outline is fixed on a piece of fteel, which is filed or cut clofe to the outline. This is a puncheon; and the puncheon nakes the die, which is the counter-puncheon. A punchen is complete without letters, but it may be made with letters upon it; though from the difficulty and inconvenience it is never fo made at the Mint; but after the die is firuck, the letters are engraved on it. A puncheon alone without the counter-puncheon, will not make the figure; but to make an old fhilling, or a base failling current, nothing more is neceffary than these inftruments. They may be used for other purposes, such as making feals, buttons, medals, or other things where such impreflions are wanted.”

On the first day of Hilary. Term, 1779, Eleven of the Judges (abfenté Ld. Ch. J. De Grey) were unanimously of opinion, That this was a puncheon, within the meaning of the Act; and at the February Sefton following, the prifoner received judgment of high treaton.

JONES'S

JONES'S CASE.

At Chelmsford, 21st July, 1779, William Jones, otherwife Thorowgood, was indicted before Lord Mansfield, for that be having in his cuftody a certain forged paper-writing purporting to be a Bank Note (defcribing it) as followeth; that is to fay,

· N° F. 946,

"I promife to pay John Wilfon, Efq. or bearer, Ten < Pounds.

did difpofe of and put away the faid forged paper-writing as and for a good and true Bank Note, well knowing the fame to be forged. There were other counts charging it to be First, a certain forged and counterfeited note; and, Secondly, a forged paper-writing, purporting to be a promiffory note for payment of money; and laying the offence to have been committed, firft, with an intention to defraud the Bank of England; and, fecondly, with an intention to defraud James Rayner.

The Jury acquitted the prifoner as to thofe counts which charged an intent to defraud the Bank of England; and as to the other counts, they found a fpecial verdict to the following effect: That the paper-writing, purporting to be a Bank Note, is not a note filled up by any of the officers of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, or eptered in any of their books, but is forged: That the faid William Jones, otherwife Thorowgood, well knowing the faid paper-writing not to be a note of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, but to be forged, averred the fame paper-writing to be a good Bank Note, and difpofed of and put away the fame as a good Bank Note to James Rayner, with intent to defraud the faid James Rayner; and that the faid James Rayner took the faid paper-writing, and gave the full value of Ten Pounds for the fame to the said William Jones, otherwife Thorowgood, believing the said pa

per

per-writing to be a true Bank Note. That the Governor and Company of the Bank of England frequently pay Bank Notes, which are filled up by their officers and entered in their books, although the fame happen not to be figned: That the paper-writing purporting to be a promiffory note for the payment of money, is not a note filled up by any of the officers of the Bank of England, &c. but is forged : That the faid William Jones, otherwife Thorowgood, well knowing the faid laft-mentioned paper-writing not to be a note of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, but to be forged, averred that it was a good Bank Note, and uttered and published it as a good Bank Note to James Rayner, as above-mentioned. But whether, &c.

On Wednesday, 24th November, 1779, this special verdict was argued in the Court of King's Bench by M. Fielding on the part of the profecution, and by Mr. Mingay on the part of the prisoner.

The Court were of opinion, That the reprefentation which the prifoner had made to Rayner, viz. That it was a good Bank Note, could not alter the purport of it, which is what appears upon the face of the inftrument itself; for although fuch falfe reprefentations might make the party guilty of a fraud or cheat, they could not make him guilty of felony.

THE

THE

LAWYER'S

AND

MAGISTRATE'S MAGAZINE,

For MARCH, 1791.

ADJUDGED CASES

In the COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MICHAEL MAS

TERM, 31 GEO. III.

TH

AURIOL v. MILLS, in Error.

HIS Cafe was removed by writ of error from the Court of Common Pleas. The cafe there, (which fee Vol. I. ante p. 477), was an action of covenant against Auriol, a bankrupt, for non-payment of rent payable quarterly. The covenant on which the breach was affigned, after the ufual words, yielding and paying, &c. was as follows: “And the faid Peter James (the Defendant) for himfelf, his heirs, executors, adminiftrators, and affigns, did thereby covenant, promife, and agree, (amongst other things) to and with the faid Benjamin, (the Plaintiff), his heirs, and affigns, that he the faid Peter James, his heirs, executors, administra'tors, or affigns, thould and would, during all the rest of the faid term, thereby demifed, well and truly pay, or cause to be paid, unto the faid Benjamin, his heirs and affigns, the faid clear yearly rent of 110l. in manner and form aforefaid, according to the true intent and meaning of the faid inVOL. II. denture."

Hh