This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for general ions on library shelves before il was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often diflicult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parlies, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the plus We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a b<x>k is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means il can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's hooks while helping authors ami publishers reach new audiences. You can search through I lie lull text of this book on I lie web at|http : //books . qooqle . com/|
xxu
TABLE OP OASIS CITED.
Page
R v. Haeeall 405
R v. Robeon 406
v.
v
V V V V V V
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
R
R
R
R
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Rv
Denmour 406
Wells 408
Reeves 408
Haeeall.... 408
Garratt 408
Hoare 408
JBunkall 408
Daviee.... 408
Looee 409
Jackson 410
Clegff 411
Henderson 411
Richmond. 411
Matthews 412
Aden 413
Daynes 413
Heywood 414
Young 414
Heywood.. 416
Jones 416
Heywood 416
Firth 416
Henwood 417
Bleasdale 418
Beaney 420
Pitman 420
Phillips 421
Harvey 421
Cramp 421
Pear 421
Gharlewood 421
8tock 421
Rawlins 421
Williams 421
Yend 421
Gumble 421
Clay 422
Sutton 422
Williams 422
Downing 425
Walsh 426
Metcalfe 427
Heath 427
MinterHart 428
Danger 428
Yates 428
Clarke 428
Ransom 428
Vyse 429
West 429
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
R v.
R v.
Rv.
Rv.
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R v.
Rv.
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R v.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
v.
V.
v.
V. V. V.
v. v. v. v.
V.
v.
V.
v. v. v. v.
V. V. V. V. V. V,
pAor
Ransom 429"
Gilchrist 430
Heath 430
Morrison 430
Smith 430
Lowrie 430
West 430
Meagle 430
Pooley 430
Perry 430
Watts 430
Morris 432
Powell 432
Skeen 433
Strahan 433
Walker 435
Westbear 435
Bailey 43&
Parker 437
Norris 43T
Worrald 437
Rice 438
Reece 438
Munday 438
Gooch 438
Jones 438
Hodges 439
Whiteman 439
Shepherd 439
Martin 442*
Sun ley 444
Sleep 444
Hodges 445
Brunsby 447
Webb 448
Holloway 448
Poole 448
Trevenner 448
Butterworth 453
Butterworth 464
Ball 464
Blackburn 454
John Lowenbruck 454
Webster 456-
Burgess 456
Moody 466
Diprose 466
Robinson 468
Pearce 468
Thompson 469
Simpson 46£
Hamilton 460*
~%# i ■•«!.■■ ivmim
£/-/
■Mi
W
■snrr:
THE
CKIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION
ABT>
AMENDMENT ACTS
OF
1869, 32-33 Vict.
FOE THB
DOMINION OF CANADA, U^ <,LlJ<<
Afl AMBVDBD AMD IN FOBOB
On the 1st day op November, 1874, in the Provinces op Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and, on the 1st day op January, 1875, in British Columbia,
WITH
IjUtp, 4«wKnlMW*> jN«*Mt* *f pfltlMMii, $(., §<„ $t.
BT
HENRI ELZEAR TASCHEREAU,
OHB OF THE JUDGES OF THB SUPERIOR COUBT FOB THB PBOYIVOE OF QUBBSO
■ t <#» *
Vol. I.
PBIBTBD BT THB LOVBLL PRTNTIWO AWD PUBLISHING COM P A If T.
1874.
L 9626
M^9
\$&
Entered according to Act of the parliament of Canada, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, by Henri Elz&ab Tasohbbiad, in the office of the Minister of Agriculture.
• • •
• • •
• • ••
• • • •
• • •
• •
• •
• • •
PKBFACB.
The following pages are hardly anything eke but a compilation. They may, nevertheless, perhaps prove use* ful.
They will be found to contain the full text of the Crimi- nal Statutes Consolidation Acts of 1869, with a synopsis, under each clause, of the law and the rules of pleading, practice and evidence applicable to it.
It will be found that no reference is made, except in very few instances, to the Criminal Statutory Law in force, in each of the Provinces, before Confederation. This has been thought the best mode to ensure, for the work, an equal use- fulness throughout the whole of the Dominion. For the same object, no citations of cases decided and reported in each of the Provinces will generally be met with. With Mr. Clarke's valuable book, this would, moreover, have been superfluous.
However, it has not been forgotten that,
Longum iter est per pnecepta, Breve et efficax per exempln,~»&ntfaz.
and the reported English Crown cases down to July last will be found numerously cited and largely made use of: it cannot be denied that the weight of their authority and their practical importance, for the Dominion of Canada, have been largely increased by the enactment of the Crimi-
•v PREFACE.
»
nal Law Consolidation Acts of 1869, based as these are on the Imperial Criminal Law Consolidation Acts of 1861, and taken almost textually from them.
At the end of each clause will be found cited the corres- ponding clause of the Imperial Statute, and any material difference between both mentioned.
The annotations made by the learned Mr. Greaves, Q.C., on the u Lord Campbell's Acts," of 1851, and the Consoli- dated Acts of 1861, have beencompiled and inserted, when thought of practical utility to the Canadian practitioner : these annotations are rendered the more valuable by the fact that these Statutes were drawn and framed by Mr.
Greaves.
Not a few errors, some of a very grave nature, have crept into our said Statutes of 1869 : they will be found noticed, under each clause, as they have been observed. By a glance at the following sections, where some of such errors, are met with, the necessity of a complete revision of these Acts will be amply demonstrated : sections 12, 20, 29, 32 and 46, of the Forgery Act : sections 1 9, 31 and 41 of the offences against the Person Act : sections 12, 15, 43, 54, 56, 57, 60, and 61 of the Malicious Injuries to property Act : sections 72 and 73 of 31 Vict. ch. 68, and sections 67 and 68 of 31 Vict. ch. 12, in conjunction with sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Offences against the Person Act: section 74 of 31 Vict, ch. GS,pcye 213, &c., &c«, &c.
In other parts, are found provisions which seem to cover matters left entirely, by the British North America Act, under the control and legislative powers of the provincial legislatures, and therefore, ultra vires of the Parliament and unconstitutional: attention has been called to the sections
PREFACE. V
containing these enactments, as well as to others, which seem to contain a legislation entirely new, based on doctrines at all times repudiated by the Criminal Law of England, unknown, before Confederation, in each and every one of the Provinces now constituting this Dominion of Canada, and rejected by perhaps all the modern Codes of the world. An enactment of this kind may be seen in section 110 of the Larceny Act.
To this Volume, so as to make it complete by itself, have been joined a list of the cases cited, a table of contents, a table of Statutes, and a copious index : in fact, no pains have been spared to enhance its usefulness to the practitio- ner.
The second Volume will consist of the Procedure Act of 1869, with annotations, the general Bepeal Act of 1869, and the Acts extending the Criminal Consolidation Statutes to Manitoba, (34 Vict. ch. 14) British Columbia, (31 Vict, ch- 42) and Prince Edward Island, if this last one is then enact- ed. But a condition, which must bo admitted to be a fail' one, is attached to the publication of the second Volume : it is, that the expenses incurred in the publication of the first be reimbursed. The experience of others teaches that, in this Country, one would be greatly mistaken if he expected a pecuniary reward for a law publication, but it would not be just to ask the addition of a pecuniary sacrifice to the no small amount of labour necessarily bestowed on these
■
pages. Fraserville, River du Loup, en bas, P.Q.
2nd November, 1874.
TABLE OP CONTENTS.
Paoc
An Act respecting offences relating' to the Coin., 32-33 Vict.,
ch. 18 I
Forgery. — General Remarks 39
An Act respecting Forgery .—32-33 Vict., ch 19 65
The Trade Marks Offences Act.— 35 Vict., ch. 32 113
An Act respecting offences against the person.— 32-33 Vict., ch. 20 161
Larceny. — General Remarks 356
An Act respecting Larceny and other similar offences. — 32-33 Vict., ch. 21 400
An Act for the avoidance of doubts respecting Larceny of Stamps. —35 Vict., ch.33 640
An Act respecting Malicious Injuries to Property.— 32-33 Vict., ch. 22 641
An Act respecting Perjury.— 32-33 Vict., ch. 23 726
An Act for the suppression of voluntary and extra-judicial oaths. -37 Vict., ch.37 747
An Act for the better preservation of the peace in the vicinity of public works.— 32-33 Vict., ch. 24 (mentioned only) 753
An Act respecting certain offences relative to Her Majesty's Army and Navy— 32-33 Vict., ch. 25 754
An Act for the better protection of Her Majesty's Military and Naval stores.— 32-33 Vict., ch. 26 758
An Act respecting cruelty to animals. — 32-33 Vict., ch. 27 765
An Act respecting Vagrants.— 52-33 Vict., ch. 28 769
Index 771
» • •
• • •
• »
TABLE OF STATUTES.
THE COIN ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 18.
Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.......
JLiJ* ... ...
15
16
17
18
19
1
3
6
8
9
10
12
13
13
14
14
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
23
Section 20 23
Section 21 24
Section 22 24
Section 23 25
Section 24 26
Section 25 31
Section 26 32
Section 27 33
Section 28 34
Section 29 35
Section 30 35
Section 31 3ft
Section 32. 37
Section 33 37
Section 34. 38
Section 35 38
Section 36 38
Section 37 38
THE FORGERY ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 19.
Section Section Section Section Section
Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section
1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 9.
io, 11
12
13
14
15
16
17,
18,
19
20
21
65 6/ 67 68 69 72 73 75 77 78 79 80 81 82 87 89 90 91 92 93 94
Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section
22. 23. 24, 25, 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 3g. 39. 40. 41. 42.
94 97 9i> 100 105 109 111 112 113 113 130 130 131 133 133 134 136 137 138 139 139
TABLE OF STATUTES.
|
140 |
|
|
143 |
|
|
146 |
|
|
, 146 |
|
|
148 |
|
|
149 |
|
|
160 |
|
Section 52 151
Scetion 53 151
Section 54 154
Section 55 155
Section 56 156
Section 57 167
Section 58 157
Section 69 158
THE TRADE MARKS OFFENCES ACT.
35 Vict. ch. 32.,
OFFENCES AGAINST THE" PERSON ACT.
113
32-33 Vict., ch; 2<h
Section Section Section- Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section
1..,
2..
3..(
4..
&..
6....
7..
8...
9... 10.. 11.. 12.. 13.. 14.. 15.. 16.. 17.. 18.. 19.. 20.. 21.. 22
23... 24.. 25 . . . 26 . . 27... 28.., 29.. 30 . . , Si..; 32.. 33.. 84.., 35. * 36 . . 37..
161 161 220 221 192 162 222 225 226 227 231 232 233 239 240 243 244 233 249 253 254 255 255 256 257 260 262 263 263 265 268 268 269 279 280 281 282
Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section
38
39...
40.
4i.
42
43......
44 • •»•••» •'••■.. ».•••■•» 4»X. • « « •%*» i*** * • • •
46
47. .,
48
49
50.
51
52
63
54
65
66
67
68
69
60.^ 61... 62...
*•» ■-.* hi
63 »»•»•• tuku
64* no^^iit
66... ........
66
67
68... i-.-.
69... ;. ......
70. ..*. ......
71
72...........
73.
74
. • ■
283
285
287
288
289
293
293
294
294
298
307
307
313
314
315
317
318
322
323
325
326
336
338
339
340
344
345
347
347
347
348
349
350
350
351
351
352
TABLX OP STATUTES.
XI
Section 75 362
Section 76 362
Section 77 363
Section 78 364
Section 79 365
Section 80 365
Section 81 .. 365
THE LARCENY ACT.
3W3 Vict., ch. 2i.
|
Section Section Section Section Section |
1..,. 2 . 3. 4,... 6.... |
400 404 / 404 413 414 |
Section Section Section Section Section |
|
Section |
6.... |
.',' 415 |
Section |
|
Section |
7.... |
418 |
Section |
|
Section Section Section |
8,... 9 10.... |
418 419 .. 420 |
Section Section Section |
|
Section Section Section Section |
11 14 |
421 422 423 424 |
Section Section Section Section |
|
8ection Section |
lu • . • ■ 16 |
431 |
Section Section |
|
Section |
17.... |
432 |
Section |
|
Section |
18.... |
433 |
Section |
|
Section |
19.... |
436 |
Section |
|
Section |
20.... |
437 |
Section |
|
Section |
21 |
438 |
Section |
|
Section Section |
23.... |
442 |
Section Section |
|
Section |
24.... |
443 |
Section |
|
Section |
25.... |
444 |
Section |
|
Section Section |
26 . . . . 2?.... |
444 446 |
Section Section |
|
Section Section Section |
29 30.... |
447 .... 448 |
Section Section Section |
|
Section Section |
31 , 32.... |
449 449 |
Section Section |
|
Section |
33.... |
450 |
Section |
|
Section |
34 |
451 |
Section |
|
Section |
35.... |
451 |
Section |
|
Section |
36 • • • • 37.... |
451 |
Section |
|
Section |
, 452 |
Section |
|
|
Section |
38.... |
452 |
Section |
|
Section* |
39.... |
457 |
Section |
|
Section Section |
41 ... . |
458 |
Section Section |
|
Section |
42 |
474 |
Section |
|
Section |
43.... |
; 477 |
Section |
|
Section |
44.... |
479 |
Section |
|
Section |
Section |
46.
47.
48,
49,
50.
51.
52
53.
64.
55.
66.
67.
68.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
8ft.
8T.
88.
89.
90.
484 486 487 504 506 508 512 512 514 518 522 524 524 525 529 529 532 535 536 637 510 540 541 542 544 563 564 545 545 566 567 570 570 570 572 573 574 574 674 575 575 576 576 577 578
Xll
TABLE OF- STATUTES.
Section 91 579
Section 92 679
Section 93 584
Section 94 602
Section 95 603
Section 96 604
Section 97 604
Section 98 606
Section 99 606
Section 100 607
Section 101 608
Section 102. 609
Section 103 609
Section 104 609
Section 105. ; 610
Section 106.... 610
Section 107 618
Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section
108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124.
618 619 620 626 627 628 632 633 635 63G 637 637 638 638 639 639 640
Section 1
THE LARCENY OF STAMPS ACT.
35 Vict., ch. 33. 640 | Section 2..i,
641
THE MALICIOUS INJURIES ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 22.
Section 1 641
Section 2 645
Section 3.... 646
Section 4 649
Section 5 650
Section 6 651
Section 7 661
Section 8 653
Section 9 655
Section 10..." 655
Section 11 656
Section 12 656
Section 13 658
Section 14 658
Section 15 661
Section 16 662
Section IT 664
Section 18.. 666
Section 19 667
Section 20 669
Section 21 669
Section 22 669
Section 23..... 671
Section 24....... 672
Section 25 672
Section 26 674
Section 27 676
Section 28.. . 677
Section 29 678
Section 30 679
Section 31 679
Section 32..... 680
Section 33 680
Section 34 682
Section 35 683
Section 36.. 684
Section 37 685
Section 38.. 686
Section 39 687
Section 40 688
Section 41 688
Section 42 688
Section 43 691
Section 44... 692
Section 45 692
Section 46 692
Section 47.... 693
Section 48.. 695
Section 49. 695
Section 50. * 696
Section 51 697
Section 52... 698
TABLE OF STATUTES.
XIU
Section 53 698
Section 54 699
Section 55 701
Section 56 701
Section. 57 702
Section. 58 703
Section 59 704
Section 60 705
Section 61 706
Section 62 707
Section 63 708
Section C4 709
i Section 65 709
Section 66 709
ISection 67 710
I Section 68 710
•Section 69 711
'Section 70 711
Section 71 711
I Section 72 712
Section 73 712
Section 74 712
Section 75 725
Section 76 725
Section Section Section Section Section Section
Section
THE PERJURY ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 23.
i 726 Section 7 727
2 726 Section 8 743
3 737;Section 9 732
4 738 : Section 10 744
5 738Section 11 743
6 739 :
THE VOLUNTARY OATHS ACT.
37 Vict., ch. 37. 1 747 | Section 2 748
THE PEACE ON PUBLIC WORKS ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 24 753
THE ARMY AND NAVY OFFENCES ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 25.
|
Section Section Section |
1 9 A |
754 754 755 |
Section Section Section Section |
6 . 7 8 |
|
Section Section |
4 5 |
755 755 |
9 |
756 756 756 756
THE MILITARY AND NAVAL STORES ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 26.
|
Section |
1 |
|
Section |
2 |
|
Section |
3 |
|
Section |
4 |
|
Section |
5 |
|
Section |
6 |
|
Section |
7 |
|
Section |
8 |
|
Section |
9 |
758 758 758 758 759 759 759 759 760
Section 10 760
Section 11 761
Section 12 761
Section 13 761
Section 14 .- 761
Section 15 761
Section 16 762
Section 17 762
liv TABLE OF STATUTES.
THE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 27.
Section 1 765 Section 7 767
Section 2 766 Section 8 767
Section 3 766 Section 9 767
Section 4 766 Section 10 767
Section 5 766 Section 11 768
Section 6 767
THE VAGRANTS ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 28. Section 1 769 Section 2 770
The following are the Editions of the books most frequently cited in these pages, besides the Reports of cases, and the Crimina. Law Commissioners' Reports :
Archbold 17th.
Burn's Justice • 30th.
Stephen's Commentaries 7th.
Russell, Crimes and Misdemeanors, by Greaves % 4th.
Broom's Commentaries 4th.
Taylor, on Evidence 6th.
Hale, Pleas of the Crown 1st American.
Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 8th.
East, Pleas of the Crown 1st.
Sir J. Kelyng's Crown cases Stevens and Haynes' reprint, 1873.
Roscoe, Crim. Evidence 6th.
Wharton's Law Lexicon 5th.
Greaves' Consol. Crim. Acts 2nd.
Blackstone's Commentaries 10th.
Starkie, Crim. Pleading. < 2nd.
Bishop, Crim. Law 5th.
Bishop, Crim. Procedure 2nd.
Bishop, Statutory Crimes 1st.
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
{See the second Volume for this list in alphabetical order.)
PAGE
Bennet v. Watson 717
Costar v. Hetherington 296
Elsmore v. St. Briavels 646
Hoyev. Bash 200
Hancock v. Somes 296
Hamilton v. Rex 597
Hopkin v. Crowe 768
Martin v. Shoppee. . 300
Morris v. Wise 447
Merriman v. Hundred ot
Chippenham 468
McPherson v. Daniels 176
O'Neil v. Longman 290
Read v. Coker 300
R v. Rogers 3
R v. Gerrish 3
R v.Williams 3
R v. Varley...i 5
R v. Morris 5
R v. Robinson 6
Rv. Connell 6
R v. Bryne 6
R v.Case 7
R v. Lavey 8
R v. Turner 8
R v. Turner 8
R v. Woolridge 11
R v. Joyce 11
Rv.Hedges 11
R v.Franks 15
R v.Page 15
Rv.Ion 15
R v.Welch 15
R v. Greenwood... 16
Rv. Hurse 16
Rv. Else 16
R v. Manners 16
R v.Page..... ; 16
R v.Jones. 16
R v.Price 16
R v. McGinnes 17
Rv.Martin.... 19
R v. Goodwin 19
R v. Robinson 20
R v. Lennard 28
Rv
R v.
R v.
R v.
R v.
R v.
Rv.
R v.
R v.
Rv.
R v.
Rv.
R v.
Rv.
R v.
R v.
R v.
R v.
R v.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
R v.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
R v.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Page
Sutton 28
Foster 28
Ridgeley 28
Bannon 28
Roberto 29
Grover 29
Richmond 29
Rogers 29
Weeks 30
Harvey 3a
Collins 42
Chadwick 42
Ritson 43
Hill 44
Geach 44
Birkett 44
Wilson 44
Hodgson 45
Hodgson 46
Tylr.ey 48
Marcus 48
Nash 48
de Berenger 49
50 50
sa
50
sa
Peck King . , Birch . Tylney Hevev
Higgins 51
Hodgson 52
Nash 52
Mazagora 52
Crooke. 53
Goate 53
Holden 53
Shephard 53
Trenfield 53
Crowther '. 53
James 53
Boardman 53
Todd 53
Powner 53
Asplin 53
Elliott 54
Post 64
• fttatj* • t <•
• * • *
* • • t
TABLE OP STATUTES.
THK COIN ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 18.
Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section
1. 2. 3, 4, 5. 6, 7. 8. 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
U.
16.
17.
18.
19.
1
3
6
8
9
10
12
13
13
14
14
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
23
Section 20 23
Section 21 24
Section 22 24
Section 23 ... 1 25
Section 24 26
Section 25 31
Section 26 32
Section 27 3a
Section 28 34
Section 29 35
Section 30 35
Section 31 3&
Section 32 37
Section 33 37
Section 34 38
Section 35... 38
Section 36 38
Section 37.. ., 38
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section.
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19
20
21
THE FORGERY ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 19.
.... 65 Section 22.
6/ Section 23,
.... 67 Section 24,
.... 68 Section 25,
69 Section 26.
.... 72 Section 2T.
.... 73 Section 28,
.... 75 Section 29.
.... 77 Section 30,
., .. 78 Section 31.
.... 79 Section 32.
.... 80 Section 33,
.... 81 Section 34.
.... 82 Section 35.
.... 87 Section 36.
.*.. 89 Section 37.
90 Section 38.
91 Section 39.
92 Section 40.
93 Section 41.
.... 94 Section 42.
94 97 9* 100 105 109 111 112 113 113 130 130 131 133 133 134 136 137 138 139 139
TABLE OF STATUTES.
|
140 |
|
|
143 |
|
|
, 146 |
|
|
146 |
|
|
, 148 143 |
|
Section 52 151
Scetion 53 151
Section 54 154
Section 55 155
Section 56. 156
Section 67: 157
Section 58 157
Section 59 158
THE TRADE MARKS OFFENCES ACT.
35 Vict. ch. 32.,
OFFENCES AGAINST THE* PERSON ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 2^.
113
Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section
1..
2_
3...
4..
&..
6...,
7..,
8...
9..,
10..
11...
12..
13..
14..
15..
16..
17..
18..,
19..,
20..
21..
22 . .
23...
24..
25...
26 . .
27...
28 .
29 ; . ,
30 . . ,
31..
32..
33...
84 . .
35.,
36..
87..
161 161 220 221 192 162 222 225 226 227 231 232 233 239 240 243 244 233 249 253 254 255 255 256 257 260 262 263 263 265 268 268 269 279 280 281 282
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section-
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
, 283
285
287
288
289
293
44.<. . >• .•.,,.. ••«... • • ««fo
38. 39, 40. 41. 42. 43.
uv
4&..,. 46..... 47 ..... 48
60....
51....
52....
63....
54....
65.. ..
66 . . . .
67....
68....
59.^.
60.»t.-.»...
61.....>.^.
62. ..».*>.,.
63 »t.».kttb
64*. »*«»***•
65...;.....
66.........
67...;.....
68.-..i-.-.-.v.
69...;;....
to...*
71.........
72.....;;;. 73.;.......
74.........
294
294
298
307
307
313
314
315
317
318
322
323
325
326
336
338
339
340
344
345
347
347
347
348
349
350
350
351
351
352
TABLX OF STATUTES.
XI
Section 75 362
Section 76 362
Section 77 363
Section 78 364
Section 79 365
Section 80 365
Section 81 385
THE LARCENY ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 2i.
Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section 8ection Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section
I. 2. 3, 4. 5, 6 7, 8. 9
10 11, 12 13 14, 15 16 17 18. 19, 20, 21, 22 23. 24 25. 26, 2?. 28, 29 30 31 32, 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39, 40. 41 42. 43. 44, 45
|
400 |
Section Section Section |
46 |
484 |
|
404 |
47 |
486 |
|
|
404 |
48 |
487 |
|
|
413 |
Section Section |
49 '.'.' |
604 |
|
414 |
50 |
506 |
|
|
415 |
Section |
51 |
508 |
|
418 |
Section |
52........ |
512 |
|
418 |
Section |
53........ |
512 |
|
419 |
Section |
64 |
514 |
|
420 |
Section |
55 |
: 6i8 |
|
421 |
Section |
56 |
622 |
|
422 |
Section |
57 |
524 |
|
423 |
Section |
68 |
524 |
|
424 |
Section |
59 |
625 |
|
425 |
Section |
60 |
529 |
|
431 |
Section |
61 |
529 |
|
432 |
Section |
62 |
532 |
|
433 |
Section |
63 |
535 |
|
436 |
Section |
64 |
536 |
|
437 |
Section |
65 |
637 |
|
438 |
Section |
66 |
540 |
|
440 |
Section |
67 |
540 |
|
442 |
Section |
63.. |
541 |
|
443 |
Section |
69 |
642 |
|
444 |
Section |
70 |
544 |
|
444 |
Section |
71 |
563 |
|
446 |
Section |
72 |
564 |
|
447 |
Section |
73 |
545 |
|
447 |
Section |
74........ |
545 |
|
448 |
Section |
75. |
566 |
|
449 |
Section |
76 |
567 |
|
449 |
Section |
77 |
570 |
|
450 |
Section |
73... ...... |
570 |
|
451 |
Section |
79 |
570 |
|
451 |
Section |
80 |
572 |
|
451 |
Section |
m |
573 |
|
452 |
Section |
82 |
574 |
|
452 |
Section |
83........ |
, 574 |
|
457 |
Section |
84 |
574 |
|
457 |
Section |
85 |
575 |
|
458 |
Section |
80........ |
575 |
|
474 |
Section- |
87. |
676 |
|
477 |
Section* |
88........ |
576 |
|
479 |
Section |
89........ |
577 |
|
482 |
Section |
90........ |
578 |
Xll
TABLE OF- STATUTES.
Section 91 579
Section 92 579
Section 93 584
Section 94 602
Section 95 603
Section 96 604
Section 97 604
Section 98 606
Section 99 606
Section 100 ■ 607
Section 101.... 608
Section 102.... 609
Section 103 609
Section 104 609
Section 105. . 610
Section 106.... 610
Section 107 618
Section 108 618
Section 109 619
Section 110 620
Section 111 626
Section 112 627
Section 113 628
8ection 114 632
Section 115 633
Section 116 635
Section 117 636
Section 118 637
Section 119........ 637
Section 120 638
Section 121 638
Section 122.... 639
Section 123. 639
Section 124 640
Section 1
THE LARCENY OF STAMPS ACT.
35 Vict., ch. 33. 640 | Section 2..t.
641
THE MALICIOUS INJURIES ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 22.
Section 1...7 641
Section 2 645
Section 3.... 646
Section 4 649
Section 5 650
Section 6 651
Section 7 651
Section 8 653
Section 9 655
Section 10..." 655
Section 11 656
Section 12. 656
Section 13 658
Section 14...... 658
Section 15 661
Section 16 662
Section 17 664
Section 18.7 666
Section 19.. 667
Section 20 669
Section 21 669
Section 22.... 669
Section 23.. 671
Section 24....... 672
Section 25... 672
Section 26 674
Section 27 676
Section 28 . . . 677
Section 29........ 678
Section 30 679
Section 31 679
Section 32..... 680
Section 33 680
Section 34 682
Section 35 683
Section 36.... 684
Section 37....... 685
Section 38... 686
Section 39. 687
Section 40 688
Section 41 688
Section 42 688
Section 43 691
Section 44... 692
Section 45. 692
Section 46.. 692
Section 47. ....7.7 .... 693
Section 48. 695
Section 49 695
Section 50. 7 696
Section 51 697
Section 52 69&
TABLE OF 8TATUTES.
Xlll
Section 53 698
Section 54 699
Section 55 701
Section 56 701
Section. 57 702
Section. 58 703
Section 59 704
Section 60 705
Section 61 706
Section 62 707
Section 63 708
Section C4 709
Section 65 709
Section 66 709
! Section 67 710
I Section 68 710
Section 69 711
Section 70 711
Section 71 711
Section 72 712
Section 73 712
Section 74 712
Section 75 725
Section 76 725
|
THE |
PERJURY ACT. |
||
|
32-33 Vict., ch. 23. |
|||
|
Section Section Section Section Section Section |
2 3 4 5 w • * • * ••# |
• » • ••••»• |
726 Section 7 726 j Section 8 737 ! Section 9 738 j Section 10 738. Section 11 739 j |
727 743 732 744 743
Section 1
THE VOLUNTARY OATHS ACT.
37 Vict., ch. 37. 747|Section 2 748
THE PEACE OK PUBLIC WORKS ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 24 753
THE ARMY AND NAVY OFFENCES ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 25.
|
Section Section Section |
1 0 «• • * •-«•• •■»«••• •■*.• •• • ■ • 3. |
754 754 755 755 755 |
Sectioa Section. Section Section |
6 . 7 8 |
|
Section Section |
4 5 |
9 |
756 756 756
756
THE MILITARY AND NAVAL STORES ACT.
32-33 Vict., ch. 26.
|
Section |
1 |
|
Section |
2 |
|
Section |
3 |
|
Section |
4 |
|
Section |
5 |
|
Section |
6 |
|
Section |
7 |
|
Section |
8 |
|
Section |
9 |
758 768 758 758 759 759 759 759 760
Section 10 760
Section 11 761
Section 12 761
Section 13 761
Section 14 / 761
Section 15 761
Section 16 762
Section 17 762
TABLE OF OASES CITED.
Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv Rv
Page
Hassall 405
Robeon 406
Denmour 406
Wells 408
Reeves 408
Haeeall 408
Garratt 408
Hoare 408
*Bunkall 408
Davies 408
Loose , 409
Jackson 410
Cleg* 411
Henderson 411
Richmond 411
Matthews 412
Aden 413
Daynes . k 413
Heywood 414
Toung 414
Heywood.. 415
Jones 416
Heywood 416
Firth 416
Hen wood 417
Bleasdale 418
Beaney 420
Pitman 420
Phillips 421
Harvey 421
Crump 421
Pear 421
Gharlewood 421
Stock 421
Rawlins 421
Williams 421
Yend 421
Gumble 421
Clay 422
Sutton 422
Williams 422
Downing 425
Walsh 426
Metcalfe 427
Heath 427
MinterHart 428
Danger 428
Yates 428
Clarke 428
Ransom 428
Vyse 429
West 429
•
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
R v.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R v.
Rv.
R v.
Rv.
Rv.
V.
V. V. V.
v.
V. V. V. V. V. V.
v.
V. V. V. V. V.
v. v. v.
V. V% V. V.
v. v. v. v.
V. V. V. V. V. V.
Paoit
Ransom 42fr*
Gilchrist 430
Heath 430
Morrison , 430
Smith 430
Lowrie 430
West 430
Meagle 430
Pooley 430
Perry 430
Watts 430
Morris 432
Powell 432
Skeen 433
Strahan 433
Walker 435
Westbear 435
Bailey 43&
Parker 437
Norris 43T
Worrald 43T
Rice 438
Reece 438
Munday 438
Gooch 438
Jones 438
Hodges 439-
Whiteman 439
Shepherd 439
Martin 442'
Sunley 444
Sleep 444
Hodges 445
Brunsby 447
Webb 448
Holloway 448
Poole 448
Trevenner, 448
Butterworth 453
Butterworth ., „ 454
Ball 454
Blackburn 454
John Lowenbruck 454
Webster 456-
Burgess 456
Moody 456
Diprose 456
Romnson 458
Pearce 458
Thompson 45£
Simpson 46£
Hamilton 460*
TABLE OF CA8ES CITED.
XX11I
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
R v.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv;
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
Rv.
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Rv.
Rv.
v.
V. V. V. V. V. V. V.
Page
Collins 460
Farrell 462
Peat 463
Hemmings 463
Da vies 464
Moore 464
Mason. 464
Steward 464
Horner 464
Baker 464
Robins 464
Macauly 464
Gnosil 465
Reane 465
Donnolly 465
Simons 465
Brown 465
Astly 465
Taplin 466
Winkworth 466
Knewland 466
MacGrath.... 466
Gascoigne 467
Black ham 467
Harman 469
Gnosil....: 469
Astley 470
Fallons 472
Wright 472
Nicholson 473
Pelfryman and Randall. 473
Binefey . . . : 474
Archer 474
Hagan 474
Ellis 474
Nicholls 474
Woodhall . . : 474
Mitchell 477
Robinson 479
Hamilton . . . : 479
Gardner 479
Smith 479
Pickford 479
Jackson 480
Edwards 480
Walton 481
Robinson 481
Tucker . . . : 484
Gardner 484
Richards 484
Harris 484
Robinson 485
Page
R v.Gill 485-
R v. Gardner 486
R v. Cracknell 486
R v. Richards 48G
R v. Redman 48&
Rv.Kain 48G
Rv. Phipoe 487
Rv. Edwards 487
Rv.Pickford 488
R v.Smith 488
Rv.Smith 491
R v.Lyons 491
Rv.Martin 492
Rv.Smith 492
R v. Brown 492
R v. Margetts 492
R v.Davis 492
R v. Hallard 492
R v. Thompson 492
Rv.Harris 492
Rv.Puller 492
R v. Murray 493
R v. Kirkham 493
Rv. Gibbins 493
R v. Flannagan 493
Rv. Stock 493
R v.Wilson.... 493
Rv. Rawlings....: 494
R v. Jarvis 494
R v. Westwood 494
Rv.Smith.-. 494
R v.Turner 494
R v. Jones 495
R v. Athea 495
R v. Rodgers 495
R v. Carroll 495
R v. Trapshaw.; 495
Rv. Bailey 495
R v. Jenkins ; 495
R v. Carroll 495
R v. Burrowes.. 496
R v.Higgs 496
R v. Jenkins 497
Rv.Smith 498
R v.Lewis 498
Rv.Sprigge 498
Rv.Brice 498
Rv.Hames 499-
Rv.Hall 499
Rv.Robinson 499'
R v.Callan 500
R v. Lawrence 50fe
XXIV
TABLE OF GASES CITED.
Page
R v. Russell 500
R v. Johnson 501
R v. Wenmouth 501
R v.Davis..... 501
R v. Bennett . .' 501
Rv. Paine... 501
R v. Davis 501
Rv.Smith. 501
£ v. Bailey . 502
Rv. Davis 502
Rv. Brice ;...:. 502
R v. Hughes 502
R v.Smith I! 503
R v. Spanner. 503
R v. Dobbs. 503
Rv. Brice 504
R v. Spanner 504
R v. Thompson 504
R v. Furnival 504
R v. Barker.... 505
Rv. Wheeler....... 505
R v. Evans. 505
R v. Hutchinson 505
Rv. Wheeldon,. 507
R v . Lawrence 507
Rv. Russell."..' .' 507
Rv. Davis 507
Rv. Withal.; 509
Rv. Corner 509
R v. Hungerfbrd.... 509
.R v. Butterworth 509
Rv. Clarke 510
R v.Nicholas 510
R v. Lawes 510
R v. Johnson 510
R v. Thompson.'.' 510
R v. ComptpnV 511
Rv. Lawrence 511
Rv. Wheeldon..... 511
Rv. Garland. 512
R v. Clayburn. 515
Rv. Chalking 515
Rv.Lithgo.... i 516
Rv. Walters 516
R v. Hancock 516
R ▼*. Westwood 516
R v'. Bennett '. * 516
R v. Davis '. . i 516
R v. Gilbert ... . 517
R v. Eggintbn 517
R v.Pearce 518
R. v. Robinson 518
Page
R v. Wenmouth 519
R v. Amier 619
R v. Sandera 519
R v. Carter... 519
R v.Hill....... 520
R v.Potter.. 520
R v. Andrews 520
Rv. Smith 520
R v. McPherson 521
B v. Johnson 522
R v. Bain... 623
R v. Lawes 526
R v.Nicholas 526
R v.Clarke. 626
Rv.Tarrald 526
Rv. Oldham 527
Rv.Bailey 629
R v. McPherson 630
R v. Petrie 530
R v. Hamilton 530
R v. Thompson 530
Rv. Gould. 530
R v. Bowden. 530
Rv. Taylor 531
R v. Campbell 531
R v.Owen 531
Rv: Carroll 531
R v. Thomas 532
R v. Hamilton. . . : 532
R v. Rosser 532
R v. Etherington 533
R v. Jackson 533
R v. Leonard 534
R v. Murphy 535
R v. Woodhead 536
Rv.Hugill 536
R v.Dixon 536
Rv. Grimes 538
R v.Leigh 538
R v.Pike 339
Rv. Madox 539
Rv. Bowden 539
R v.Wright 539
R x. Jennings 543
R v. Cheeseman 544
R v. Snowley 547
R v. Thorley 547
R v. Hawtin 547
Rv. Mellish 547
Rv. Gorbutt 549
Rv.Betts 549
R v. Noake 560
TABLE OF CASKS CITXD.
XXV
Page
R v. Purchase 550
Rv.Balls 550
R v. Furneaux 551
Rv.Flower 551
Rv.Tyers 651
Rv.Keena 551
R v. McGregor 551
R v. Beacall. 551
R v. Somerton 651
Rv.Lovell 551
R v. Crighton 651
Rv.Beacall 552
Rv.Crighton 252
R v. Bootyman 552
R v. Hodgson 552
Rv.Smith 552
Rv.Mellish 562
R v. Squire 552
R v. Townsend 552
Rv.Adey 552
R v. Jenson 552
R v. Hartley 552
R v. Macdonald 552
Rv.Balls 562
Rv. Carr 562
R v. Hoggins 552
Rv.Tite 552
R v. Bowers 553
R v. Walker 553
R y. May 553
Rv.Mayle. 553
Ru, Marshall 553
R v.Dixon 554
R v. Turner 554
R v. Bowers 555
R v. Marshall 555
R u. Bailey 555
R v. Negus 555
R u. CuTlum 556
R v. Spencer 556
R v.Smith 566
R v. Hughes 556
Rv.Nettleton 556
R v. Burton 556
R v. Tongue 656
R v.Hall 556
Rv.Mffler 556
Rv-Prond 566
Rv. Tyrie 556
R v. Diprose 557
Rv. Taffs 567
Rv. Bren 557
Page
R v. Bedford 557
R v.Hunt 557
R v. Stamer 557
R v. Carr 658
R v. Battv 658
R v. LeacH 558
Rv! White 558
Rv. Glover..., 558
R v. Flanagan 558
Rv. Taylor -. 558
Rv. Peck 558
R u.Smith 558
R v. Hawkins 558
R v. Goodenough 558
R v, Murray 559
Rv, Watts 559
Rv.Read 559
R u.Wright... 559
R v, Masters 559
Rv, Hedge 559
R v.Gill 559
Rv.Betts 560
R v. Hoggins 560
R v.Wilson 560
Rv. Cooke 561
R v , Beaumont, 561
R v, Thorp ..,,.,, 561
Rv. Harris 561
Kv. Sullens 561
R v. lister 561
Rv.Guelder 662
R v. Walstenholme , 562
R v, Jackson 562
Rv. Welch 562
Rv, Wortley 562
R v. Grove 562
R v. Lambert 562
Rv.Moab 562
R v, Jones 562
R v. Chapman 562
R v.Kjng 563
Rv. Williams 563
R v. Townsend 566
Rv. Borrett 566
R v. Belstead , 567
R v. Cooper , 580
Rv.Golde 580
Rv. Prince 580
R v. White 580
R v, Gomm 580
R v. Fletcher 580
R . Roebuck 505
XXVI
TABLE OF OASES CITED.
Page
R v. Bagleton 685
R v. Hensler 585
Rv. Gorbutt 687
R v. Adams 587
R v.Bryan 587
Rv.Maeon 588
R v. Airey 4 588
Rv. Goodhall 588
R v. Johnston 588
R v.Lee 588
R v. Fry 588
R v. West < 588
R v. Jennison 588
Rv. Giles 588
R v. Henshaw 589
R v. Steels 589
R v. Wickham 589
Rv. Woolley 589
R v. Ball 589
R v. Roebuck 589
R v. Young 589
R v. Je8sop 589
R v. Hughes 589
R v. Mills 590
Rv. Roebuck 590
R v. Brooks 590
R v.Dale 590
R v. Gardner 690
R v.Martin 590
R v. Watson 590
R v. Evans 590
Rv.Stone 590
R v. Barnes 590
R v. Thompson 590
R v.Flint 590
R v. Jackson 590
R v. Parker 590
R v. Spencer 590
R v. Wickham 590
R v. Philpott 590
R v. Freeth 590
R v. Story 590
R v. Jones 590
R v. Barnard 591
Rv. Crab 591
R v. Dowey , 591
R v.Davis.: 692
R v. Burrows 592
R v. Meakin 693
R v. Williamson 693
Rv.Mills 593
R v. Hensler 594
Page
R v. Howarth 594
R v. Carpenter 595
R v. Walne 595
Rv.Kilham 595
R v. Kinrick 595
R v. Abbott 595
R v. Burgon 69ft
R v. Roebuck 59ft
R v. Sherwood 59ft
R v.Bryan 59ft
R v. Ragg 59ft
R v. Goss 59ft
Rv. Lees 69ft
Rv. Ridgway 59ft
R v.Pratt 596
R v.Lee „ 696
R v. Suter 59ft
Rv. Ardley 59ft
Rv. Oates 59ft
R v. Wakeling 59ft
R v. Copeland. 597
R v. Jennison 597
R v. Archer 597
R v. Bloomfield 597
R v. Asterley 697
R v. Crossley 697
Rv.Kilham 597
Rv.Naylor 697
R v. Henderson 597
Rv. Philpotts 597
R v. Bowen 597
R v. Adamson 597
R v. Ady 597
Rv.Hewgill 697
Rv.Hill 598
R v. Wickham 598
R v.Bates 598
Rv.Dale 598
R v. Hunt 698
R v.Bulmer 698
R v. Jennison 598
Rv.Brooks 598
R v. Adamson 698
Rv. Chadwick 698
R v.Holt 698
R v. Welman 699
Rv.Danger 699
Rv. Boulton 699
Rv.Beecham 699
R v. Greenhaigh 699
Rv. Wavill 699
R v.Garrett 699
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
XXVll
Page
R v. Crosby 599
R v. Williams 599
R v. James 599
Rv. Willot 600
R v. Ardley 600
R v. Bryan 600
R v.English 601
R v. Lince 601
Rv.Radcliffe 601
R v. Morland 601
R v. Kerrigan 602
R v. Garret 602
R v. Danger 603
R v. Moss 605
Rv.Hudson 605
R v. Darmley 605
R v. Rosier 606
Rv. Bailey 606
R v. Adams 607
R v. Beeton 611
R v. Jervis 61 1
R v.Baxter 611
R v. Woolford 612
R v. Caspar 612
R v. Hughes 612
R v. Huntley 612
R v. Craddock 612
Rv. Wilson 613
R v. Goldsmith 614
Rv.Hill 614
R v. Wiley 614
Rv.Smith , 614
R v. Hobson 614
R v. Dyer 614
R v. Craddock 614
R v. Hilton 614
R v. Hughes 615
R v. Perkins 616
R v. Drine 615
R v. Woodward 615
R v. Walkley 615
R v. Cowell 615
R v. Butteris 616
R v. Gunnell » 616
R v. Roberts 616
R v. Richardson 616
R v. Davis 616
R v. Densley 616
R v. Cordy 616
R v. M* A they 616
R v. Qaslam 616
R v. Turner 616
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Ru. |
|
Ru. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
R v. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
|
Rv. |
Page
Cox 616
Baldwin 616
Dunn 616
Davis 616
Nicholls 616
Mansfield 616
Oddy 617
Adams 617
White 617
Langmead 617
Deer 617
Smith 617
Coggins 618
Phillips 626
Holloway 626
Poole 626
Kilham 626
Pierce 630
Stancliffe 630
Goldsmith 630
Smith 631
Atkin 631
Macklin 631
Macklin 632
Stancliffe 633
Ledbitter 634
Pascoe 634
O'Donnell 634
King 634
Turner 642
Lewis 642
Warren 645
Fletcher 645
Connor 646
Allison 646
Kimbrev 646
England 646
Jones 647
Amos 648
Collev 648
Edgell 648
Newboult 648
R 648
Kitson 649
March 649
Edgell 652
Manning 652
Lyons 653
Heseltine 654
Batatone 654
Child 654
Heseltine 655
xxvm
TABLE OF OASES CITED.
R v.Taylor 658
R v. Clayton 658
R v. Howell 659
R v . Brown 659
R v. Sheppard 660
R v.Howell 661
Rv. Tacey 667
Rv. Fisher 667
R v. Mackerel 668
Rv. Fidler 668
Rv. Bartlett 668
Rv. West 668
R v.Foster 668
R v. Turner 670
Rv. Newill 670
R v. Woodward 670
R v. Swatkins 670
R v. Spencer 670
R v. Aria 671
R v. Price 671
R v. McKeever 671
R v.Satchwell 671
R v. Whiteman 674
R v. Lewis 674
R v. Dodson 675
R v. Martin... 677
R v. Jones 679
R v. Oxfordshire 686
R v. Derbyshire 686
R v. Bradford 690
R v. Hadfield 690
R v. Hardy 690
Rv. Chalkley 693
R v. Mogg 693
R v. Haywood 693
R v. Jeans 693
Rv. Bullock 693
R v. Owens 693
R v. Haughton 693
R v. Bowver 696
R v.Smifh 696
R v.Wallace 696
Rv. Philp 697
Rv. Newill 697
R v. Gilson 697
R v.Hill 703
R v. Jepson 703
R v. Williams 704
Rv. Whiteman 704
Page
R v. Thomas 704
Rv. Pembliton 705
R v. Essex 707
Rv. Mussett 707
R v. Thomas 713
R v. Dunn 7ia
R v. Tate 73fr
R v. Holden 730
R v. Lewis 730-
R v. Willmott 720
R v. Bampton 73fc
R v. Yamngton . . , , 733
R v. Higgins 733
R v. Harris 733-
R v. Ganard 737
R v. Harvey 737
R v. Tyson 737
R v. Smith ...„, .,. 737*
R v. Naylor: , 73T
R v. Western 737"
Rv.Alsop 737
R v. Hodgkins 73T
R v. Bawn 737
R v. Chugg >.> 737
Rv. Buttle 737
R v. Timins > 737
R v. Dunning <. 737
R v. London n 737
R v. Fletoher 737
R v. Crawley , . » 737
R v.Willis 737
R v. Hook ,, 737
Rv. Nott 751
R v. Dixon . 76$
R v. Farrington 76&
R v. Cohen 764
Rv. Sleep 764
R v. Sunley 764
Skuse v. Davis 296
Stephen v. Meyer 300
Tatlock v. Harris 46
Taylor v. Newman 424
The Common Wealth v. Yer-
ker 584
Walsby v. Harvey 290
Wilkinson v. Dutton 297
Walker v. Corporation of
London 630
White v. Feast...: 707
THE
CRIMINAL LAW (TottsoUMott and Am^dmcnt Ids o\ 1869,
FOR TBI
DOMINION OF CANADA.
■ —» i
AN ACT RKSPEGTINti OJJ?ENGES RELAT-
ING TO "THE 6oiN. * -
32-33 vict. chap. 18.
imperial act, 24-25 vtot. chap. 99.
T¥ 7HEREAS it is expedient to assimilate, amend and ▼ ▼ consolidate the statute law of the several provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, respecting offences relating to the coin, and to extend the same, as so consolidated, to all Canada : Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as fol- lows:
Sect. 1. In the interpretation of and for the purpose of this Act, the expression " current gold or silver coin n
B
2 THE CKIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
shall include any gold or silver coined in any of Her Majesty's mints, or gold or silver coin of any foreign prince, or state or country or other coin lawfully current, by virtue of any proclamation or otherwise, in Canada, or any other part of He* Majesty's dominions, and the expression " current copper coin " shall include any cop- per coin, and any coin of bronze or mixed metal coined in any of Her Majesty's mints, or lawfully current, by virtue of any proclamation or otherwise, in Canada, or any other part of Her Majesty's dominions ; and the ex- pression " false or counterfeit coin resembling or appa- rently intended to resemble or pass for current gold or silver coin " or other similar expression, shall include any of the current coin, which has been gilt, silvered, washed, coloured or cased over, or in $ny maimer altered, so as to resemble or be-amva/etotly linfewted ta resemble or pass .*•."": tb\ apy";wf -th$ outrfent'cbin" of a higher denomination; ind the expression " current coin " shall include any coin coined in any of Her Majesty's mints, or lawfully current, by virtue of any proclamation or otherwise, in Canada, or any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, and whe- ther made of gold, silver, copper, bronze or mixed metal; — and where the having any matter in the custody or possession of any person is mentioned in this Act, it shall include not only the having of it by himself in his personal custody or possession, but also the knowingly and wilfully having it in the actual custody or possession of any other person, and also the knowingly and wilfully having it, in any dwelling house or other building, lodging, apartment, field or other place, open or inclosed, whether belonging to or occupied by himself or not, and whether such matter is so had for his own use or benefit, or for that of any other person. Sect. 1, Imperial Act.
• •
OFFENCES RELATING TO THE COIN. 3
The Imperial Act applies only to the " Queen's current gold and silver coin " coined in any of Her Majesty's mints, or lawfully current in any part of Her Majesty's dominions in or out of the United Kingdom. The Cana- dian Act includes gold or silver coin of any foreign prince, state or country current in Canada, or in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions. But the clause is so framed, in the English Act, as to include all such coin, though the words " of any foreign prince, state or country" are not inserted. The part of the clause, declaring what shall be the having in possession men- tioned in the Act, is to cover questions which came up in Reg. vs. Rogers, 2 Mood, 45 ; Reg. vs. Gerrish, 2 M. A Rob, 219, and Reg. vs. Williams, 1 C. & M. 259.— Greaves, Consol. Acts, 318.
COUNTERFEITING CURRENT GOLD OR SILVER COIN.
t
Sect. 2. — Whosoever falsely makes or counterfeits any coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current gold or silver coin is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for life, or for any term not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard la- bour, and with or without solitary confinement.— Sect. 2, Imp. Act.
Sect. 34. Whenever any person is convicted of any indictable misdemeanor punishable under this Act, the Court may, if it thinks fit in addition to or in lieu of any of the punishments by this Act authorized, fin#the offender and require him to enter into his own recogniz- ances, and to find sureties, both or either, for keeping the peace and being of good behaviour ; and in case of any
4 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
felony punishable under this Act, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the offender to enter into his own recog- nizances and to find sureties, both or either, for keep- ing the peace, in addition to any punishments by this Act authorized : Provided that no person shall be impri- soned under this section for not finding sureties, for any period exceeding one year. Sect. 38, Imp. Act.
Indictment. The Jurors for Our Lady the Queen upon their oath present, that J. S., on the first day of June, in the year of ten pieces of false and counterfeit coin, each piece thereof resembling and apparently intended to resemble and pass for a piece of current gold coin, called a sovereign, falsely and feloniously did make and counterfeit, against the form Archbold, 744.
It is rarely the case that the counterfeiting can be proved directly by positive evidence : it is usually made out by circumstantial evidence, such as finding the ne- cessary coining tools in the defendant's house, together with some pieces of the counterfeit money in a finish- ed, some in an unfinished state, or such other circumstances as may fairly warrant the jury in presuming that the defen- dant either counterfeited or caused to be counterfeited, or was present aiding and abetting in counterfeiting the coin in question. Before the modern statutes which reduced the offence of coining from treason to felony, if several conspired to counterfeit the Queen's coin, and one of them actually did so in pursuance of the conspiracy, it was treason in all, and they might all have been indict- ed for counterfeiting the Queen's coin generally, 1 Hale, 214 ; but now, only the party who actually counterfeits would be the principal felon, and the others, accessories before the fact, although triable as principals. — 31 Vict ch. 72.
OFFENCES RELATING TO THE COIN. 5
A variance between the indictment and the evidence in the number of the pieces of coin alleged to be coun- terfeited, is immaterial ; but a variance as to the deno- mination of such coin, as guineas, sovereigns, shillings, would be fatal, unless amended. By the old law the counterfeit coin produced in evidence must have appear- ed to have that degree of resemblance to the real coin that it would be likely to be received as the coin for which it was intended to pass by persons using the cau- tion customary in taking money. In R. vs. Varley, 1 East. P. C. 164, the defendant had counterfeited the resem- blance of a half-guinea upon a piece of gold previously hammered, but it was not round, nor would it pass in the condition in which it then was, and the judges held that the offence was incomplete. So, in R. vs. Morris, 1 Leach 165, where the defendants were taken in the very act of coining shillings, but the shillings coined by them were taken in an imperfect state, it being requisite that they should undergo another process, namely inmersion in diluted aqua fortis, before they could pass as shillings, the judges held that the offence was incomplete ; but now by sect. 32, of the Coin Act of 1869, the offence of coun- terfeiting shall be deemed complete although the coin made or counterfeited shall not be in a fit state to be ut- tered, or the counterfeiting thereof shall not be finished or perfected.
Any credible witness may prove the coin to be coun- terfeit, and it is not necessary for this purpose to produce any moneyer or other officer from the mint. Sect. 30, infra. If it become a question whether the coin, which the counterfeit money was intended to imitate be current coin, it is not necessary to produce the Proclamation to prove its legitimation : it is a mere question of fact to be
6 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
left to the jury upon evidence of usage, reputation, Ac. — Hale, 196, 212, 213. It is not necessary to prove that the counterfeit coin was uttered or attempted to be utter- ed. 1 East, P. C. 165 ; Archbold, 744 ; Reg. vs. Robinson, 10 Cox, 107; Reg. vs. Connell, 1 C. and K. 190 ; Reg. vs. Byrne, 6 Cox, 475.
By sect. 49, 32-33 Vict., ch. 29, if, upon the trial for any felony, it appears that the defendant did not com- plete the offeDce charged, but was only guilty of an attempt to commit the same, a verdict may be given of guilty of the attempt
As to solitary confinement, see sect. 94, 32-33 Vict., ch. 29.
COLOURING, &C, COIN.
Sect. 3. Whosoever gilds or silvers, or with any wash or materials capable of producing the colour or appear- ance of gold or of silver, or by any means whatsoever washes, cases over, or colours any coin whatsoever resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current gold or silver coin, or gilds or silvers or with any wash or materials capable of producing the colour or appearance of gold or of silver, or by any means whatsoever, washes, cases over or colours any piece of silver or copper, or of coarse gold or coarse silver, or of any metal or mixture of metals respectively, being of a fit size and figure to be coined, and with intent that the same shall be coined, into false and counterfeit coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current gold or silver coin, or gilds or with any wash or materials capable of producing the colour and appearance of gold, or by any means whatsoever, washes,
f
OFFBNOES RELATING TO THE COIN. 7
cases over or colours any current silver coin, or files or in any manner alters such coin, with intent to mate the same resemble or pass for any current gold coin, or gilds or silvers, or with any wash or materials capable of producing the colour or appearance of gold or silver, or by any means whatsoever, washes, cases over or colours any current copper coin, or files, or in any manner alters, such coin with intent to make the same resemble or pass for any current gold or silver coin, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the penitentiary for life or for any term not less than two years, or to he imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — Sect. 3, Imp. Act.
Indictment for colouring coin falsely, deceitfully
and feloniously did gild a certain false and counterfeit coin resembling a certain piece of current gold coin,
called a sovereign, against the form Archbold, 746.
Prove the gilding, Ac. or colouring as stated in the indict- ment. Where the defendant was apprehended in the act of making counterfeit shillings, by steeping round blanks, composed of brass and silver in aquafortis, none of which were finished, but exhibited the appearance of lead, though by rubbing they readily acquired the appear- ance of silver, and would pass current, it was doubted whether this was within the late Act, but the judges held the conviction to be right. — R. vs. Case, 1 Leach, 145. In another case a doubt was expressed whether an immersion of a mixture, composed of silver and base metal, into aqua fortis} which draws the silver to the surface, was a colour- ing within the repealed statutes, and whether they were not intended to apply only to a colouring produced by a
8 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAWV
superficial application. R. vs. Lavey, 1 Leach, 153. But the words " capable of producing '* seem to have been introduced into the recent Statute for the purpose of obviating the doubt. Moreover, the present Statute adds the general words " or by any means whatsoever." Where a wash or material is alleged to have been used by the defendant, it must be shown either from the application by the defendant, or from an examination of their proper- ties, that they are capable of producing the colour of gold or silver. But an indictment charging the use of such ma- terial will be supported by proof of a colouring with gold itself. R. vs. Turner, 2 Mood. 41. Archbold, 746. Where direct evidence of the act of colouring cannot be obtain- ed, circumstances may be shown from which the act may be presumed, as that the prisoner was in possession of false coin, and that blanks coloured and materials for colouring were found in his house. — 1 Burn's Justice, 806.
Indictment for colouring metal, &c falsely,
deceitfully and feloniously did gild ten pieces of silver, each piece thereof being respectively of a fit size and figure to be coined, and with intent that each of the said pieces of silver respectively should be coined into false and counterfeit coin resembling a piece of current gold coin, called a sovereign, against the form Archbold, 747.
An indictment charging the gilding of sixpences " with materials capable of producing the colour of gold n is good, and is supported by proof of colouring six- pences with gold. — R. vs. Turner, 2 Mood., 41.
IMPAIRING, &C, GOLD AND SILVER COIN.
Sect. 4. — Whosoever impairs, diminishes, or lightens any current gold or silver coin, with intent that the
OFFENCES RELATING TO THB COIN. 9
coin so impaired, diminished or lightened may pass for current gold or silver coin, is guilty of felony and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding fourteen years, and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary con- finement.—Sect. 4, Imp. Act.
Sect. 5. — Whosoever unlawfully has in his custody or possession any filings or clippings, or any gold or silver bullion, or any gold or silver in dust, solution or other- wise, which have been produced or obtained by impair- ing, diminishing, or lightening any current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to have been so produced or obtained, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceed- ing seven years, and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labor, and with or without solitary confinement Sect. 5, Imp. Act.
Indictment. — ten pieces of current gold coin, called
sovereigns, falsely, deceitfully and feloniously did im- pair with intent that each of the ten pieces so impaired might pass for a piece of current gold coin, called a sovereign, against the form Archbold, 748.
The act of impairing must be shown, either by direct evidence of persons who saw the prisoner engaged in it, or by presumptive evidence, such as the possession of filings and of impaired coin, or of instruments for filing, &c. The intent to pass off the impaired coin must then appear. This may be done by showing that the prisoner attempted to pass the coin so impaired, or that he car-
10 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
ried it about his person, which would raise a presump- tion that he intended to pass it. And if the coin were not so defaced by the process by impairing, as appar- ently to affect its currency, it would, under the circum- stances, without further evidence, be a question for the jury, whether the diminished coin was intended to be passed. — Roscoe, on Coining, 19. As to sect. 5, Greaves remarks, p. 321 : " This clause is new. It has fre- quently happened that filings and clippings, and gold dust have been found under such circumstances as to leave no doubt that they were produced by impairing coin, but there has been no evidence to prove that any particular coin had been impaired. This clause is in- tended to meet such cases.79
As to solitary confinement, see 32-33 Vict., ch. 29, 8. 94. As to requiring the offender to enter into recog- nizances and find sureties for keeping the peace, see sect. 34, ante, with sect. 2.
BUYING OB SELLING COUNTERFEIT COIN AT A LOWER
VALUE.
Sect. 6. — Whosoever, without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused, buys, sells, receives, pays or puts off, or offers to buy, sell, receive, pay or put off, any false or counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current gold or silver coin, at or for a lower rate or value than the same imports or was apparently in- tended to import, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for life or for any term not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than
0FRNCE8 RELATING TO THE COIN. 11
two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement; and in any indictment for any such offence as in this section aforesaid, it shall be sufficient to allege that the party accused did buy, sell, receive, pay or put off, or did offer to buy, sell, receive, pay or put off the false or counterfeit coin, at or for a lower rate of value than the same imports, or was apparently intended to import, without alleging at or for what rate, price or value, the same was bought, sold, received, paid or put off, or offered to be bought, sold, received, paid or put off. — Sect. 6, Imp. Act.
Indictment — • . .ten pieces of false and counterfeit coin, each piece thereof resembling a piece of the current gold coin, called a sovereign, falsely, deceitfully and feloniously, and without lawful authority or excuse did put off to one J. N. at and for a lower rate and value than the same did then import ; against the Arch- bold, 750.
Prove that the defendant put off the counterfeit coin as mentioned in the indictment. In B. vs Woolridge, 1 Leach, 307, it was holden that the putting off must be complete and accepted. But the words offer to buy, sell, &c. in the above clause would now make the accept- ation immaterial
The last part of the clause refers to the indictment : by it, the cases of B. vs. Joyce, and B. vs. Hedges, 3 C. & P. 410 would not now apply. — Archbold, 751. If the names of the persons to whom the money was put off can be ascertained, they ought to be mentioned and laid severally in the indictment ; but if they cannot be ascer- tained the same rule will apply which prevails in the case of stealing the property of persons unknown. — 1 Russell, 135.
12 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
As to requiring the offender to enter into recogni- zances, and find sureties for keeping the peace, see sect. 34, ante, under sect. 2. As to solitary confinement, see sect. 94, 32-33 Vict., ch. 29.
IMPORTING COUNTERFEIT COIN.
Sect. 7. — Whosoever, without lawful authority or ex- cuse, the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused, imports or receives into Canada any false or counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for life, or for any term not less than two years, or to be im- prisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard la- bour, and with or without solitary confinement. — Sect. 7, Imp. Act.
Indictment. — ten thousand pieces of false and
counterfeit coin, each piece thereof resembling a piece of the current silver coin called a shilling, falsely, deceit- fully and feloniously, and without lawful authority or ex- cuse, did import into Canada, — he the said J. S. at the said time, when he so imported the said pieces of false and counterfeit coin, well knowing the same to be false
and counterfeit ; against the form Archbold, 751 ;
1 Russell, 108 ; 1 Burn's Justice, 867.
The guilty knowledge of the defendant must be aver- red in the indictment and proved.
As to sureties and solitary confinement, as, ante} under sect. 2.
OFFENCES RELATING TO THE COIN. 13
EXPORTING COUNTERFEIT COIN.
Sect. 8. — Whosoever, without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused, exports or puts on board any ship, vessel or boat, or on any railway or carriage or vehicle of any description whatsoever 9 for the purpose of being exported from Canada, any false or counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current coin, or for any foreign coin of anyprince} country or state, knowingthe same to be false or counterfeit, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in any gaol or place of confine- ment other than a Penitentiary, for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — Sect. S, Imp. Act.
The words in Italics are not in the English Statute.
Indictment. One hundred pieces of false and
counterfeit coin, each piece thereof resembling a piece of the current coin called a sovereign, falsely, deceitfully and knowingly, and without lawful authority did export from Canada, — he the said C. D. at the time when he so exported the said pieces of false and counterfeit coin, then well knowingthe same to be false and counterfeit ; against 1 Burn's Justice, 825. See obser- vations on last preceding clause.
UTTERING COUNTERFEIT GOLD OR SILVER COIN.
Sect. 9. — Whosoever tenders, utters or puts off any false or counterfeit coin resembling or apparently intend- ed to resemble or pass for any current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding fourteen
14 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
years, and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement, for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.— Sect. 9, Imp. Act.
Sect. 10. — Whosoever tenders, utters or puts off as being current, any gold or silver coin of less than its lawful weight, knowing such, coin to have been im- paired, diminished or lightened, otherwise than by lawful wear, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in any gaol or place of confine- ment other than a Penitentiary, for a period not exceed- ing one year, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. (This clause is not in the English Act, whose Sect. ] 0 is different.)
Sect. 11. — Whosoever has in his custody or possession any false or counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, and with intent to utter or put off any such false or counterfeit coin, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding three years, nor less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of con- finement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary con- finement. (Sect. 1 1 of the English Act is for having three or more pieces of counterfeit coin.)
Indictment for uttering counterfeit coin
one piece of false and counterfeit coin resembling a piece of the current gold coin, called a sovereign, un- lawfully, falsely and deceitftilly did utter to one J. N., — he the said (defendant) at the time he so uttered the
OFFENCES RELATING TD THE COIN. 15
said piece of false and counterfeit coin, well knowing the same to be false and counterfeit; against the form Archbold, 763r
Prove the tendering, uttering or putting off the sove- reign in question, and prove it to be a base and counter- feit sovereign. Where a good shilling was given to a Jew boy for fruit, and he put it into his mouth under pretence of trying whether it were good, and then taking a bad shilling out of his mouth instead of it, returned it to the prosecutor, saying that it was not good; this (which is called ringing the changes) was holden to be an uttering, indictable as such. — R. vs. Franks, 2 Leach, 644 ; Archbold, 753^ The giving of a piece of counter- feit money in charity is not an uttering, although the person may know it to be counterfeit ; as in cases of this kind, there must be some intention to defraud. — Reg. vs* Page, 8 C. and P. 122. But this case has been overruled. — Reg. vs. Ion, 2 Den, 484 ; 1 Russell, 126. (See sect. 14 of the Forgery Act, and remarks thereon.)
A prisoner went into a shop, asked for some coffee and sugar, and in payment put down on the counter a coun- terfeit shilling : the prosecutor said that the shilling was a bad one ; whereupon the prisoner quitted the shop, leaving the shilling and also the coffee and sugar : held that this was an uttering and putting off within the sta- tute.—Reg. vs. Welch, 2 Den. 78 ; 4 Cox, 430. The pri- soner and J. were indicted for a misdemeanor, in uttering counterfeit coin. The uttering was effected by J. in the absence of the prisoner, but the jury found that they were both engaged on the evening on which the uttering took place, in the common purpose of uttering counter- feit shillings, and that in pursuance of that common pur- pose, J. uttered the coin in question : held, that the pri-
16 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW*
soner was rightly convicted as a principal, there being no accessories in a misdemeanor. — Reg» vs. Greenwood, 2 Den. 453; 5 Cox, 521. If two jointly prepare counter- feit coin, and utter it in different shops apart from each other but in concert, intending to share the proceeds, the utterings of each are the joint utterings of both, and they may be convicted jointly.— Reg. vs. Hurse, 2 M. and Rob. 360.
R. vs. Else, R. k R. 142 ; Reg. vs. Manners, 7 C. &P. 801 ; R. vs. Page, 9 C & P. 756 ; 2 Mood, 219; R. vs. Jones, 2 Mood, 85, are not law. — Archbold, 754. Hus- band and wife were jointly indicted for uttering counter- feit coin : held, that the wife was entitled to an acquit- tal, as it appeared that she uttered the money in the pre- sence of her husband. — R. vs. Price, 8 C. & P. 19. A wife went from house to house uttering base coin : her hus- band accompanied her but remained outside : held, that the wife acted under her husband ?s compulsion. — Conol- ley's case, 2 Lewin, 229. Sarah McGinnes was indicted for uttering counterfeit coin. It appeared that at the time of the commission of the offence, she was in company with a man who went by the same name, and who was convicted of the offence at the last assizes. When the prisoners were taken into custody the police constable addressed the female prisoner as the male prisoner's wife. The male prisoner denied the fact, (of her being his wife) in the hearing and presence of the woman. Sarah Mc- Ginnes since her committal had been confined of a child : held, per Byles, J., that, under the circumstances, although the woman had not pleaded her coverture, and even although she had not asserted she was married to the male prisoner, when he stated she was not his wife, it was a question for the jury whether, taking the birth of the
0PFXN0I8 RELATING TO TBI OOIN, 17
child and the whole circumstances, there was not evi- dence of the marriage, and the jury thought there was, and acquitted her, as being under the influence of her hus- band, when she uttered the coin. — Reg. v. McGinnes, 11 Cox, 391.
Proof of the guilty knowledge by the defendant must be given. This of course must be done by circumstan- tial evidence. If, for instance, it be proved that he utter- ed, either on the same day or at other times, whether be-' fore or after the uttering charged, base money, either of the same or of a different denomination, to the same or to a different person, or had other pieces of base money about him when he uttered the counterfeit money in question; this will be evidence from which the jury, may presume a guilty knowledge. — Archbold, 754 ; 1 Russell, 127.
Indictment for having in possession counterfeit gold or silver coin with intent, &c, &c, &c unlawfully, false- ly and deceitfully had in his custody and possession four pieces of false and counterfeit coin, resembling the cur- rent silver coin called with intent to utter the said
pieces of false and counterfeit coin, he the said J. S. then well knowing the said pieces of false and counterfeit coin
to be false and counterfeit ; against
Archbold, 757. — See remarks under sections 9 and 10. As to what constitutes the having in possession, see sect. 1, interpretation clause. As to fining the offender and require him to give sureties, in any cases of misdemeanor under this act, see ante, sect. 34, under sect. 2.
As to solitary confinement, 32-33 Vict., ch. 29, s. 94.
B
18 . THE OEIMZNAL 8TATTTTI LAW.
UTTERING, &C., AFTER A PREVIOUS CONVICTION SHALL
BE FELONY.
Sect. 12. — Whosoever having been convicted, either before or after the passing of this Act, of any such mis- demeanor as in any of the last three preceding sections mentioned, or of any misdemeanor or felony against this or any former Act heretofore in force in Canada, or in any of the Provinces thereof, relating to the coin, after- wards commits any of the misdemeanors in any of the said sections mentioned, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for life, or for any term not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — Sect, 12, Imp. Act.
In the English Statute, the mode of proceeding on a subsequent offence, after a previous conviction, under the Coin Act, is given by sect. 37 of this Act. In Cana- da, we have the same clause, applying to all trials, gene- rally, of a subsequent offence, after a previous conviction, and for which a greater punishment may be inflicted on that account, viz. : sect. 26, 32-33 Vict., ch. 29, (Pro- cedure Act, 1869.) It is exactly in the same terms asthe corresponding clause of the English Statute, on offences relating to the coin. The English Larceny Act, sect. 116, re-enacts it. See Greaves' observations on this last clause ; also Archbold, 364, 755. More observations on the question will be found in the Annotations on sect. 26 of the Procedure Act of 1869.
Upon the trial of an indictment for the felony of having committed a misdemeanor, within either of sections 9, 10, or 11 of 24-25 Vict., ch. 99, relating to the nnlaw-
UTTBBINO fOEMON COIN, BTC. 19
ful possession and tittering of counterfeit coin after a previous conviction for a misdemeanor within those sec- tions, the prisoner must be arraigned upon, and evi- dence respecting the subsequent offence must first be submitted to the jury, and the previous conviction must not be inquired into until after the verdict on the charge of the subsequent offence. — Regina vs. Martin, 11 Cox, 843 ; R. vs. Goodwin, 10 Cox, 534, overruled. In Reg. vs. Martin, Lush, J., admitted that he was in error, in the case mentioned at p. 757 of Archbold, Cr. PI.
UTTERING FOREIGN COIN, MEDALS, &C, WITH INTENT
TO DEFBAUD.
Sect. 13. — Whosoever, with intent to defraud, tenders, utters, or puts off, as or for any current gold or silver coin, any coin not being such current gold or silver coin, or any medal or piece of metal or mixed metals, resembling in size, figure and colour the current coin, as or for which the same is so tendered, uttered, or put off, such coin, medal or piece of metal or mixed metals so tendered, uttered or put off, being of less value than the current coin as or for which the same is so tendered, uttered or put off, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in any gaol or place of confinement, other than a penitentiary, for any term not exceeding one year, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — Sect. 13 Imp. Act.
An indictment for the offences against this section may be readily framed from the preceding forms. — See observations under sect. 2, for fine, sureties and solitary confinement.
A person was convicted, under the above section, of putting off, as and for a half sovereign, a medal of the
20 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
same size and colour, which had on the obverse side a head similar to that of the Queen, but surrounded by the- inscription " Victoria, Queen of Great Britain," instead of " Victoria Dei Gratia w and a round guerling, and not square. And no evidence was given as to the ap- pearance of the reverse side, nor was the coin produced to the jury ; and it was held that there was sufficient evidence that the medal resembled, in figure, as well as size and colour, a half sovereign. — Reg. vs. Robinson, L. & C, 604 : the medal was produced, but, in the course of his evidence, one of the witnesses accidentally dropped it, and it rolled on the floor ; strict search was made for it for more than half an hour, but it could not be found.
COUNTERFEITING COPPEB COIN.
Sect. 14. — Whosoever falsely makes or counterfeits any coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current copper coin; and whosoever without lawful authority or excuse (the proof of which shall lie on the party accused) knowingly makes or mends, or begins, or proceeds to make or mend, or buy or sell, or have in his custody or possession any instru- ment, tool or engine adapted and intended for the coun- terfeiting any current copper coin, or buys, sells, re- ceives, pays or puts off, or offers to buy, sell, receive, pay or put off any false or counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any cur- rent copper coin, at or for a lower rate of value than the same imports, or was apparently intended to import, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding seven years and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than
UTTERING RASE COPPER COIN, ETC. 21
two years with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — Sect. 14, Imp. Act.
UTTERING BASE COPPER COIN.
Sect. 15. — Whosoever tenders, utters or puts off any false or counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently in- tended to resemble or pass for any current copper coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, or has in his custody or possession three or more pieces of false or counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any current copper coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, with an intent to utter or put off the same or any of them, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in any gaol or place of confinement, other than a Penitentiary, for any term not exceeding one year, with or without hard labour, " or n with or without solitary confinement. — Sect. 15, Imp. Act.
The evidence on the prosecution relating to the copper coin, will in general be the same as on prosecutions relating to the counterfeiting of the gold or silver coin.
See remarks as to proof of intent, &c, under the preceding sections, and sect. 1, Interpretation Clause, as to what is having in custody or possession, under this clause.
DEFACING COIN, TENDER OF DEFACED COIN.
Sect. 16. — Whosoever defaces any current gold, silver or copper coin, by stamping thereon any names or words, whether such coin is or is not thereby diminished or lightened, and afterwards tenders the same, is guilty of <a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in
22 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
any gaol or place of confinement other thpn the Peniten- tiary, for any term not exceeding one year, with or with- out hard labour. — Sect. 16, Imp. Act.
Sec. 17 — No tender of payment in money made in. any gold, silver or copper coin so defaced by stamping, as in the last preceding section mentioned, shall be allowed to be a legal tender ; and whosoever tenders,, utters or puts off any coin so defaced shall on conviction before two justices of the peace be liable to forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding ten dollars, provided that it shall not be lawful for any person to proceed for any such last mentioned penalty without the consent of the Attorney General for the province in which such offence is alleged to have been committed. — Sect. 17, Imp. Act.
Indictment for defacing Coin. one piece of the current silver coin, called a half crown, unlawfully and wilfully did deface, by then stamping thereon certain
names and words against the form Arch*
bold 748.
Prove that the defendant defaced the coin in question, by stamping on it any names or words, or both. It is not necessary to prove that the coin was thereby diminished or lightened. There must be defacing and tendering, to bring the offence within section 16. Legal tender is- within the attributions of the Parliament of Canada, and clause 17 is not, therefore, unconstitutional. British N. A. Act, sect. 91, par. 20. By sect. 35, of ch. 18, 32-33 Vict., every offence under this Act made punishable on summary conviction may be prosecuted as directed by ch. 31, 32 33 Vict.
As to fining the offender, and requiring him to give- sureties for the peace, see sect. 34, ante, under sect. 2.
OOUNnRFEITCNO — UTTERING, ETC. 23
COUNTERFEITING FOREIGN GOLD AND' SILVER COIN, NOT
CURRENT IN CANADA.
Sect. 18. — Whosoever makes or counterfeits .any kind of coin not being current gold or silver coin, but re- sembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any gold or silver coin of any foreign prince, state or country, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceed- ing seven years, and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement, for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement, — Sect. 18, Imp. Act.
BRINGING SUCH COUNTERFEIT COIN IN CANADA.
Sect. 19. — Whosoever, without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused, brings or receives into Canada any such false or counter- feit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any gold or silver coin of any foreign prince, state or country, not being current coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary, for any term not exceeding seven years, and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement, for 'any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — Sect. 19, Imp. Act.
UTTERING FOREIGN COUNTERFEIT COIN.
Sect. 20. — Whosoever tenders, utters or puts off any such false or counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently
24 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
intended to resemble or pass for any gold or silver coin of any foreign prince, state or country, not being current coin, knowing the same to be false or counter- feit, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in any gaol or place of confinement, other than a Penitentiary, for any term not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour. — Sect. 20, Imp. Act.
SUBSEQUENT OFFENCES.
Sect. 21. — Whosoever, having been so convicted as in the last preceding section mentioned, afterwards com- mits the like offence of tendering, uttering or putting oft any such false or counterfeit coin as aforesaid, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, is guilty of a mis- demeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in any gaol or place of confinement, other than a Penitentiary, for any term less than two years ; and whosoever, having been so convicted of a second offence, afterwards commits the like offence of tendering, uttering or putting off any such false or counterfeit coin as aforesaid, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary, for any term not exceeding seven years, and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement, for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — Sect. 21, Imp. Act.
HAVING FOREIGN GOLD OR SILVER COIN, FALSE OR COUNTERFEIT, IN POSSESSION,
Sect. 22. — Whosoever without lawful authority or excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused)
FOREIGN COIN, FALSE IN POSSESSION. 25
lias in his possession or custody any forgedy false or counterfeited piece or coin, counterfeited to resemble any foreign gold or silver coin described in the four next preceding sections of this Act mentioned, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, with intent to put off any such false or counterfeit coin, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding three years, nor less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.
Sect. 23, Imp. Act, applies to the having in possession five pieces or more of foreign counterfeit coin, gold, silver or any other metal. The Canadian corresponding enact- ment, it will be perceived, applies only to gold or silver coin, and to any number ot them ; the word forged is not in the English clause.
Sect. 23. — Whosoever falsely makes, or counterfeits any kind of coin, not being current coin but resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any copper coin, or any other coin made of any metal or mixed metals, of less value than the silver coin, of any foreign prince, state or country, is guilty of a mis- demeanor, and shall be liable, for the first offence, to be imprisoned in any gaol or place of confinement^ other than the Penitentiary, for any term not exceeding one year ; and for the second offence, to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding seven years and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.
26 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
Sect. 22, Imp. Act, is the corresponding clause. So that sect. 22 of the Canadian Act is sect. 23 of the English Act, and vice versa : in consequence, having in possession counterfeit foreign coin other than gold or silver, which in England; is an offence, is not provided for by our said Statute. (See 31 Vict., ch. 47:) the enactment upon subsequent offences contained in sect. 23 of the Canadian Statute, is not to be found in sect. 22 of the English Statute.
The remarks under the first part of the Act are all applicable here, the enactments in those sections being the same, and repeated, to apply to foreign coin not current here.
m
MAKING, &C, COINING TOOLS.
Sect. 24. — Whosoever,^ without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused, knowingly makes or mends, or begins or proceeds to make or mend, or buy or sell, or have in his custody or posses- sion any puncheon, counter puncheon, matrix, stamp, die, pattern, or mould, in or upon which there shall be made or impressed, or which will make or impress, or which shall be intended and adapted to make or impress the figure, stamp or apparent resemblance of both or either of the sides of any current gold or silver coin, or of any coin of any foreign prince, state or country, or any part or parts of both or either of such sides j or makes, or mends, or begins or proceeds to make or mend, or buys or sells or has in his custody or possession any edger, edging or other tool, collar, instrument or engine, adapted and intended for the marking of coin round the edges with letters, grainings or other marks or figures, apparently resembling those on the edges of any such
MAKING, ETC., COINING TOOLS. 2?
coin as in this section aforesaid, knowing the same to be so intended and adapted as aforesaid,— or makes, or mends, or begins or proceeds to make or mend, or buys or sells, or has in his custody or possession any press for coinage or any cutting engine for cutting by force of a screw or of tany other contrivance, round blanks out of gold, silver, or other metal or mixture of metals, or any other machine, knowing such press to be a press for coin- age, or knowing such engine or machine to have been used or to be intended to be used for or in order to the false making or counterfeiting of any such coin as in this section aforesaid, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for life or for any term not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — Sect. 24r Imp. Act.
Indictment for making a puncheon for coining. — .
one puncheon, in and upon which there
was then made and impressed the figure of one of the sides, that is to say, the head side of a piece of the current silver coin, commonly called a shilling, knowingly, false- ly, deceitfully and feloniously and without lawful autho- rity or excuse, did make; against the form r . Arch- bold 759.
Prove that the defendant made a puncheon, as stated in the indictment ; and prove that the instrument in ques- tion is a puncheon included in the Statute. The words in the Statute " upon which there shall be made or impressed" apply to the puncheon which being convex bears upon it the figure of the coin; and the word u which will make or impress " apply to the counterpun
28 THE CRIMINAL 8TATUTE LAW.
cheon, which being concave will make and impress. However, although it is more accurate to describe the instruments according to their actual use, they may be described either way.— R. vs. Lennard, 1 Leach, 85. It is not necessary that the instrument should be capable of making an impression of the whole of one side of the coin, for the words " or any part or parts n are intro- duced into this Statute, and consequently the difficulty in R. vs. Sutton, 2 Str. 1074, where the instrument was capable of making the sceptre only cannot now occur.
And on an indictment for making amould " intended to make and impress the figure and apparent resemblance of the obverse side n of a shilling, it is sufficient to prove that the prisoner made the mould and a part of the im- pression, though he had not completed the entire impres- sion.— R. vs. Foster, 7 C. and P. 495. It is not necessary to prove under this branch of the Statute the intent of the defendant: the mere similitude is treated by the Legislature as evidence of the intent; neither is it essential to show that money was actually made with the instrument in question. — R. vs. Ridgely, 1 East P. C. 171. The proof of lawful authority or excuse, if any, lies on the defendant. Where the defendant employed a die- sinker to make, for a pretended innocent purpose, a die calculated to make shillings : and the die-sinker, suspect- ing fraud, informed the authorities at the mint, and under their directions made the die for the purpose of detecting prisoner ; it was held that the die-sinker was an innocent agent and the defendant was rightly convicted as a prin- cipal.— R. vs. Banuon, 2 Mood. 309.
The making and procuring dies and other materials, with intent to use them in coining Peruvian half-dollars in England, not in order to utter them here, but by way of
MAKING, ETC., COINING TOOLS. 29
trying whether the apparatus would answer, before sending it out to Peru, to be there used in making the counter- feit coin for circulation in that country, was held to be an indictable misdemeanor at common law. — R. vs. Robert^ Dearsl. 539 ; Archbold, 760 ; 1 Burn, 814 ; 1 Russell, 100. A galvanic battery is a machine within this section. —Reg. vs. Grover, 9 Cox, 282.
Indictment for having a puncheon in possession. —
one puncheon in and upon which there was-
then made and impressed the figure of one of thesides, that is to say the head side of a piece of the current silver coin commonly called a shilling, knowingly, falsely, deceitfully and feloniously, and without lawful authority or excuse, had in his custody and possession, against the form Archbold 760.
An indictment which charged that the defendant felo- niously had in his possession a mould " upon which said mould was made and impressed the figure and apparent resemblance " of the obverse side of a sixpence, was held bad on demurrer, as not sufficiently showing that the impression was on the mould at the time when he had it in his possession— R. vs. Richmond, 1 C. & K. 240.
As to evidence of possession, see sect. 1, Interpretation Clause, ante.~~ R. vs. Rogers, 2 Mood., 758. — The prisoner had occupied a house for about a month before the police entered it, and found two men and two women there, one of whom was the wife of the prisoner. The men attacked the police, and the women threw something into the fire. The police succeeded, however, in pre- serving part of what the women threw away, which proved to be fragments of a plaster-of-Paris mould of a half crown. The prisoner came in shortly afterwards,
30 THE CEIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
and, on searching the house, a quantity of plaster-of- Paris was found up-stairs. An iron ladle and some fragments of plaster-of-Paris moulds were also found. It was proved that the prisoner, thirteen days before the day in question, had passed a bad half-crown, but there was no evidence that it had been made in the mould found by the police. He was afterwards tried and convicted for uttering the base half-crown. It was- held that there was sufficient evidence to justify the conviction, and that, on a trial for felony, other substantive felonies which have a tendency to establish the scienter of the de- fendant may be proved for that purpose. Reg. vs.
Weeks, L. & C, 18. In Reg. vs. Harvey, 11 Cox., 662, it was held : 1. That an indictment under this section is sufficient if it charges possession without lawful excuse, as excuse would include authority; 2. That the woids " the proof whereof shall lie on the accused " only shift the burden of proof, and do not alter the character of the offence; 3. That the fact that the Mint authorities, upon information forwarded to them, gave authority to the die maker to make the die, and that the police gave permission to him to give the die to the prisoner, who ordered him to make it, did not constitute lawful authority or excuse for prison- er's possession of the die ; 4. That, to complete the offence, a felonious intent is not necessary ; and, upon a case reserved, the conviction was affirmed.
Indictyient for making a collar., — one col- lar adapted and intended for the marking of coin round the edges with grainings apparently resembling those on the edges of a piece of the current gold coin called a sovereign, falsely, deceitfully and feloniously, and with- out lawful authority or excuse, did make, — he the said
CONVEYING COINING TOOLS, KTC. 31
J. S. then well knowing the same to be so adapted and intended as aforesaid, against the form Arch- bold, 761
It must be proved, upon this indictment that the de- fendant knew the instrument to be adapted and intended for the making of coin round the edges.
It must be remarked that the present Statute expressly applies to tools for making foreign coin, as well as cur- rent coin.
As to sureties for keeping the peace, and solitary con- finement, see the preceding sections.
CONVEYING COINING TOOLS OR COIN OUT OF THE MINT
INTO CANADA.
Sect 25. — Whosoever, without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused, knowingly conveys out of any of Her Majesty's mints into Canada, any puncheon, counter-puncheon, matrix, stamp, die, pattern, mould, edger, edging, or other tool, collar, instrument, press or engine used or employed in or about the coining of coin, or any useful part of any of the several matters aforesaid, or any coin, bullion, metal or mixture of metals, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for life, or for any term not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — Sect. 25, Imp. Act.
The words into Canada make the offence very different with that mentioned in the English enactment, and one not often likely to be brought before our courts.
32 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
COIN SUSPECTED KAY BE CUT.
Sect. 26. — Where any coin is tendered as current gold or silver coin to any person who suspects the same to be diminished otherwise than by reasonable wearing, or to be counterfeit, it shall be lawful for such person to cut, break, bend or deface such coin, and if any coin so cut broken, bent or defaced, appears to be diminished other- wise than by reasonable wearing, or to be counterfeit,, the person tendering the same shall bear the loss thereof ; but if ihe same is of due weight and appears to be lawful coin, the person cutting, breaking, bending or defacing the same shall be bound to receive the same at the rate it was coined for, and if any dispute arises whether the coin so cut, broken, bent or defaced is diminished in manner aforesaid, or counterfeit, it shall be heard and finally determined in a summary manner by any Justice of the Peace, who is hereby empowered to examine upon oath, as well the parties as any other person, in order to the decision of such dispute, and if he enter- tains any doubt in that behalf, he may summon three persons the decision of a majority of whom shall be final / and the receivers of every branch of Her Majesty's revenue in Canada are hereby required to cut, break or deface, or cause to be cut, broken or defaced, every piece of coun- terfeit or unlawfully diminished gold or silver coin which shall be tendered to them in payment of any part of Her Majesty's revenue in Canada. — Sect. 26, Imp. Act.
The words in italics are not to be found in the English Act. The clause, taken altogether, is the most crude, ill-digested, impracticable piece of legislation to be found in our Statute book. The words introduced in it by our Parliament, are no improvement on the English clause* It has moreover, with us, also, a tinge of unconstitution- ality.
\
SEIZUBE, STO. 33
-8BIZUSB AND DISPOSAL OF OOUKTBKFEIT COIN AND
COINING TOOLS.
Sect. 27 If any person finds or discovers in any
place whatever, or in the custody or possession of any person having the same without lawful authority or excuse, any false or counterfeit coin resembling or ap- parently intended to resemble, or pass for any current gold, silver or copper coin, or any coin of any foreign prince, state or country, or any instrument, tool or engine whatsoever, adapted and intended for the counterfeiting of any such coin, or any filings or clippings, or any gold or silver bullion, or any gold or silver in dust, solution or otherwise, which has been produced or obtained by diminishing or lightening any current gold or silver coin, the person so finding or discovering may, and he is here- by required to seize the same and to carry the same forthwith before some Justice of the Peace 5 and in case it is proved on the oath of a credible witness, before any Justice of the Peace, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that any person has been concerned in counter- feiting current gold, silver or copper coin, or any such foreign or other coin as is in this Act before mentioned, or has in his custody or possession any such false or counter- feit coin, or any instrument, tool or engine whatsoever, adapted and intended for the making or counterfeiting of any such coin, or any other machine used or intended to be used for making or counterfeiting any such coin, or any such filings, clippings or bullion, or any such gold or silver in dust, solution, or otherwise as aforesaid, any Justice of the Peace may, by warrant under his hand, cause any place whatsoever belonging to or in the occu- pation or under the control of such suspected person to
be searched, either in the day or in the night, and if any
0
34 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
such false or counterfeit coin, or any such instrument, tool or engine; or any such machine, or any such filings, clippings or bullion, or any such gold or silver, in dusty solution or otherwise as aforesaid, is found in any place so searched, to cause the same to be seized and carried forthwith before some Justice of the Peace ; and when- ever any such false or counterfeit coin, or any such in- strument, tool or engine, or any such machine or any such filings, clippings or bullion, or any such gold or silver, in dust, solution or otherwise as afore- said, is in any case whatsoever seized and carried be- fore a Justice of the Peace, he shall, if necessary, cause the same to be secured, for the purpose of being produced in evidence against any person who may be prosecuted for an offence against this Act, and all such false and coun- terfeit coin, and all instruments, tools and engines, adapt- ed and intended for the making or counterfeiting of coin, and all such machines, and all such filings, clippings and bullion and all such gold and silver in dust, solution, or otherwise as aforesaid, after they have been produced in evidence, or when they have been seized and are not re- quired to be produced in evidence, shall forthwith by the order of the Court be defaced or otlierwise disposed of as the Court may direct — Sect. 27, Imp. Act.
The words in Italics are in lieu of " the officers of Her Majesty's mint, &c,. &c, &c," in the English Act.
Disposal of such coin produced in Court.
Sect. 28. — If any false or counterfeit coin be produced in any Court of law, the Court shall order the same to be cut in pieces in open Court, or in the presence of a Jus- tice of the Peace, and then delivered to or for the lawful owner thereof, if such owner claims the same.
This clause is not to be found in the English Act.
VENUE — COUNTBRPIT COIN, ETC. 35
VENUE.
Sect. 29. — Where any person tenders, utters or puts off any false or counterfeit coin in any one province of Canada or in any one district, county or jurisdiction therein, and also tendera, utters or puts off any other false or counterfeit coin,*in any other province, district, county or jurisdiction, either on the day of such first mentioned tendering, uttering or putting off, or within the space of ten days next ensuing, or where two or more persons, acting in concert in different provinces, or in different districts, counties or jurisdictions therein, commit any offence against this Act, every such offender may be dealt with, indicted, tried and punished, and the offence laid and charged to have been committed, in any one of the said provinces, or districts, counties or jurisdictions, in the same manner in all respects, as if the offence had been actually and wholly committed within one province, district, county or jurisdiction. — Sect. 28, Imp. Act.
Greaves says on this clause : " The first part is intro- duced to remove a doubt which had arisen, whether a person tendering, &c, &c, coin in one jurisdiction and afterwards tendering, &c, &., coin in another jurisdiction, within sect. 10, could be tried in either. As the offence created by that section is only a misdemeanor, probably there was no substantial ground for that doubt, but it was thought better to set the matter at rest." Now, sect. 10 of the English Act is not reproduced in the Canadian Act : Sect. 29 was, then, not necessary.
WHAT SHALL BE SUFFICIENT PBOOF OF COIN BEING
COUNTERFEIT.
Sect. 30.— Where, upon the trial of any person charged with any offence against this Act, it becomes necessary
36 THE CftTMINAL STATUTE LAW.
to prove that any coin produced in evidence against such person is false or counterfeit, it shall not be necessary to prove the same to be false and counterfeit, by the evidence of any moneyer or other officer of Her Majesty's mint, or other person employed, in producing the lawful coin in Her ifajesty's dominions, or elsewhere, whether the coin counterfeited be current coin, or the coin of any foreign prince, state or country not current in Canada, but it shall be sufficient to prove the same to be false or counterfeit by the evidence of any other cre- dible witness.— Sect. 29, Imp. Act.
The words in Italics are not in the English Act.
The usual practice is to call as a witness, a silversmith of the town where the trial takes place, who examines the coin in Court, in the presence of the Jury— Davis's Cr. L., 235.
PROOF IN CERTAIN CASES.
Sect. 31.— Upon the trial of any person accused of any offence alleged to have been committed against the form of any Statute of Canada, or of any of the Provinces, passed or to be passed, respecting the currency or coin, or against the provisions of this Act, no difference in the date or year, or in any legend marked upon the lawful coin described in the indictment, and the date or year or legend marked upon the false coin counterfeited to resemble or pass for such lawful coin, or upon any die, plate, press, tool or instrument used, constructed, devised, adapted or designed, for the purpose of counterfeiting or imitating any such lawful coin, shall be considered a just or lawful cause or reason for acquitting any such person of such offence ; and it shall in any case be sufficient to prove such general resemblance to the lawful coin as will
PBOOF IN CERTAIN CASES. 37
show an intention that the counterfeit should pass for it. Not in the English Act.
Sect 32— Every offence of falsely making or counter- feiting any coin, or of buying, selling, receiving, paying, tendering, uttering or putting off, or of offering to buy, sell, receive, pay, utter or put off any false or counterfeit coin, against the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed to be complete, although the coin so made or counterfeited, or bought, sold, received, paid, tendered, uttered or put off, or offered to be bought, sold, received, paid, tendered) uttered or put off, was not in a fit state to be uttered, or the counterfeiting thereof was not finished or perfected. — Sect. 30, Imp. Act. —
The word in Italics is not in the English Act.
Sect. 33. — It shall be lawful for any person whatsoever to apprehend any person who is found committing any indictable offence against this Act, and to convey or de- liver him to some peace officer, constable or officer of police, in order to his being conveyed, as soon as reason- ably may be, before a Justice of the Peace or some other proper officer, to be dealt with according to law.— Sect. 31, Imp. Act.
On this clause, Greaves remarks : " this clause is new, and clearly, unnecessary, as far as it relates to any felony or indictable misdemeanor, for there is no doubt what- ever that any person in the act of committing any such ofience is liable by the common law to be apprehended by any person, but it was introduced at the instigation of the solicitors of the Treasury, as it has been found that there was great unwillingness to apprehend in such cases, in consequence of doubts that prevailed among the public as to the right to do so.'7
1
38 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
Sect. 34. — Vide ante, under sect. 2.
Sect. 35. — Enacts that every offence by this Act made punishable on summary conviction may be prosecuted in the manner directed by 32-33 Vict., ch. 31.
Sect. 36.— Repeals Imperial Act, 16-17 Vict. ch. 48, as regards Canada, and the Act of Parliament therein cited and amended. The Imperial Act 16-17 Vict, ch. 48, extended the Coin Act, 2 Will. 4, ch. 34, to the colo- nies. The 2 WilL 4, ch. 34, had been repealed, only as to the United Kingdom by 24-25 Vict., ch. 95, sects. 1 and 2, Imperial Repeal Act ; it stands now repealed for Canada by the above clause. The Imperial Act, 16-17 Vict., ch. 102, repealed as to the United Kingdom by 24-25 Vict., ch. 95, appears to be in force as regards Canada. Judge Day, in Warner vs. Fyson, 2 Low. Can. Jurist, 106, ruled it to be law here, but its provisions are re-enacted in our Coin Act so that its non-repeal is of no consequence.
A special Statute concerning the copper coin has been passed since Confederation.
It is the 31 Vict., ch. 47, an Act respecting the manu- facture or importation of copper coins or tokens. The offences against it are all punishable on summary convic- tion.
«
Sect 37. — This Act shall commence and take effect on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy.
FORGERY.
GENERAL REMARKS.
" To forge is metaphorically taken from the smith *who beateth upon his anvil, and forgeth what fashion and shape he will : the offence is called crimen fatei, and 1;he offender falsarius, and the Latin word, to forge, is fcHsare or fabricate? — Coke, 3rd. Inst. 169.
" Forgery is the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing, to the prejudice of another's right."— 4. Blackst. 247.
In Coogan's case (1. Leach, 448), Buller, J., said "it is the making of a false instrument with intent to do- <jeive," and Eyre, B., in Taylor's case,defined it to be u a false signature made with intent to deceive." In the word " deceive " must doubtless be intended to be included *n intent to " defraud,»(T)— and so it was defined by Grose, J., in delivering the opinion of the judges in the case of Parkes and Brown, viz. : "the false making a note or other instrument with intent to defraud." Again Eyre, B., in the case of Jones and Palmer, defined it to be " the false making an instrument, which purports on the face of it to be good and valid for the purposes for which it was created, with a design to defraud any person or persons." — (t Leach, 367.) 2 East, P. C. 853- And East himself, 2 P. C. 852, says u forgery at common law denotes a false making, which includes every alter- -ation of or addition to a true instrument, a making malo ammo, of any written instrument for the purpose of fraud and deceit."
" Forgery is the false making of an instrument with intent to prejudice any public or private right." 3rd Rep * Crim., Law Comm., 10th June, 1847, p. 34.
40 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
" Forgery is the fraudulent making of a false writing,, which, if genuine, would be apparently of some legal efficacy."— Bishop, 2. Cr. L. 523.
" The characteristic of the crime of forgery is the false making of some written or other instrument for the pur- pose of obtaining credit by deception. The relation thip offence bears to the general system may be thu» briefly established, In most affairs of importance, the intentions, assurances, or directions, of men are notified and authenticated by means of written instruments. Upon the authenticity of such instruments the security of many civil rights, especially the right of property, frequently depends ; it is, therefore, of the highest impor- tance to society to exclude the numerous frauds and in- juries which may obviously be perpetrated by procuring a false and counterfeited written instrument, to be taken and acted on as genuine. In reference to frauds of this description, it is by no means essential that punishment should be confined to cases of actually accomplished fraud ; the very act of falsely making and constructing such an instrument with the intention to defraud is suf- ficient, according to the acknowledged principles of cri- minal jurisprudence, to constitute a crime, — being in itself part of the endeavour to defraud, and the existence of the criminal intent is clearly manifested by an act done in furtherance and in part execution of that intention. The limits of the offence are immediately deducible from the general principle already adverted to. As regards the subject matter, the offence extends to every writing used for the purpose of authentication
The crime is not confined to the falsification of
mere writings ; it plainly extends to seals, stamps, and all other visible marks of distinction by which the truth,
FORGERY. 41
of any fact is authenticated, or the quality or genuine- new of any article is warranted ; and, consequently, where a party may be deceived and defrauded, from bay- ing been by false signs induced to give credit where none was due. With respect to the false making of any such instrument, the offence extends to every instance where the instrument is, under the circum- stances, so constructed as to induce a party to give credit to it as genuine and authentic in a point where it is false and deceptive. And in this respect, a forged instrument differs from (me which is merely false and untrue in stat- ing facts which are false. Where the instrument i* forged, as where a certificate purporting to be signed by an authorized officer was not, in truth, signed by himr a party to whom it is shown is deceived in being induc- ed to suppose that the fact certified is accredited by the officer whose certificate it purports to be, and he is de- ceived in that respect, whether the fact certified be true or false. If, on the other hand, such a certificate be in truth signed by the officer whose name it bears, the ins- trument is not forged, although the fact certified be false- ly certified, for here the party receiving the certificate is deceived, not by being falsely induced to believe that the officer had accredited the instrument by his signature, but from the officer having falsely certified the fact. The instrument may, therefore, be forged, although the fact authenticated be true. The instrument may be genuine, although the fact stated be false. Where mo- ney or other property is obtained by an instrument of the latter description, that is, where it is false merely, as containing a false statement or representation, the offence belongs to the class of obtaining money or other property by false pretences." — 5th Rep. Crim. L. Comm. 22nd of April, 1840,
42 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
" Consistently with the principles which govern the offence of forgery, an instrument may be falsely made, although it be signed or executed by the party by whom it purports to be signed or executed. This happens where a party is fraudulently induced to execute a will, a material alteration having been made, without his knowledge, in the writing ; for, in such a case, although the signature be genuine, the instrument is false, because it does not truly indicate the testator's intentions, and it is the forgery of him who so fraudulently caused such will to be signed, for he made it to be the false instru- ment which it really is.-' — Cr. L. Comm. Rep. loc. cit.
This passage of the Criminal Law Commissioners seems tobe based on a very old case,cited in Noy's Reports, 101, Combe's case ; but in a more recent case, R. vs. Collins, 2 M. and Rob. 461, it was held that, fraudulently to in- duce a person to execute an instrument, on a misrepre- sentation of its contents, is not a forgery ; and, in a case of R. vs. Chadwick, 2 M. and Rob. 545, that to procure the signature of a person to a document, the contents of which have been altered without his knowledge's not a forgery.
The report (loc. cit.) of the criminal law Commission- ers continues as follows: " Upon similar grounds, an of- fender may be guilty of a false making of an instrument, although he sign or execute it in his own name, in case it be false in any material part, and' calculated to induce another to give credit to it as genuine and authentic, where it is false and deceptive. This happens where one, having conveyed land, afterwards, for the purpose of fraud, executes an instrument, purporting to be a prior conveyance of the same land ; here again, the instru- ment is designed to obtain credit by deception, as pur-
FORGERY. 43
porting to have been made at a time earlier than the true time of its execution." — 5th Report, loc. cit.
This doctrine was approved of in a modern case, in England: Reg. vs. Ritson, 11 Cox, 352, and it was there held, upon a case reserved, that a man may be guilty of forgery by making a false deed in his own name. (See this case, under Sect. 23, post.) Kelly, C. B., delivering the judgment of the Court, said :
" I certainly entertained some doubt at one time upon this case, because most of the authorities are of an an- cient date, and long before the passing of the Statutes of 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, and 24-25 Vict. However, looking at the ancient authorities and the text-books of the highest repute, such as Com. Dig., Bacon's Abr., 3 Co. Inst., and Foster's C. L. 117, they are all uniformly to the effect, not that every instrument containing a false statement is a forgery, but that every instrument which is false in a material part, and which purports to be that which it is not, or to be executed by a person who is net the real person, or which purports to be dated on a day which is not the real day, whereby a false operation is given to it, is forgery."
" Forgery, at common laiv, is an offence in falsely and fraudulently making and altering any matter of record, or any other authentic matter of a public nature, as a parish register or any deed or will, and punishable by fine and imprisonment. But the mischiefs of this kind increasing, it was found necessary to guard against them by more sanguinary laws. Hence we have several Acts of Parliament declaring what offences amount to forgery, and which inflict severer punishment than there were at the common law."— Bacon's Abridg. 3 Vol. 277. Cur- wood, note, 1 Hawkins, P. C. 263, is of opinion that
44 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
this last definition is wholly inapplicable to the crime of forgery at common law, as, even at common law, it was forgery to make false "private v writings.
" The notion of forgery does not seem so much to consist in the counterfeiting a man's hand and seal, which may often be done innocently, but in the endeavouring to give an appearance of truth to a mere deceit and falsi- ty, and either to impose that upon the world as the solemn act of another, which he is, no way privy to, or at least to make a man's own act appear to have been done at a time when it was not done, and by force of such a falsity to give it an operation, which in truth and justice it ought not to have." — 1 Hawk. P. C. 264.
The definitions containing only the words " with in- tent to defraud " without the words " with intent to deceive" seem defective. In fact, there are many acts held to be forgery, where no intent to defraud, as this expression is commonly understood, exists in the mind of the person committing the act ; as, for instance, if the man, forging a note, means to take it up, and even has taken it up, so as not to defraud any one, this is clearly forgery, if he issued it, and got money or credit, or anything upon it : Reg. vs. Hill, 2 Mood 30 ; Reg. vs. Geach 9, C. and P. 499 ; or forging a bill payable to the pri- soner's own order, and uttering it without indorsement, Rex. vs. Birkett, Russ. and Ry. 86, or if one, while knowingly passing a forged bank note, agrees to receive it again should it prove not to be genuine, or if a credi- tor executes a forgery of the debtor's name, to get from the proceeds payment of a sum of money due him, Reg. vs. Wilson, 1 Den. 284, or if a party forges a deposition to be used in Court, stating merely what is true, to en- force a just claim : Bishop, 2 Cr. L. 59S. All these
POBGERY. 45
sets are forgery; yet where is the intent to defraud, in these cases f It may be said that the law infers it. But why make the law infer the existence of what does not exist! Why not say that " forgery is the false making of an instrument with intent to defraud or deceive." The word " deceive " would cover all the cases above cited : in each of these cases, the intent of the forger, is that the instrument forged should be used as good, should be taken and received as signed and made, by the person whose name is forged, in oonsequence, to deceive quoad hoc, and for this, though he did not intend to defraud, though no one could possi- bly be defrauded by his act, he is in law, guilty of forgery. See 2 Russell, 774. Seejpo^, under sect. 14 of the Forgery Act.
It is true that the Court of Crown cases reserved, in England, held in a modern case, Reg. vs. Hodgson, 3, Dears. * B. 1856, that, upon an indictment for forgery at common law, it is necessary to prove, not only an intent to defraud, but also an intent to defraud a particu- lar person, though, when this case was decided, the Statute, in England, (14-15 Vict., ch. 100, s. 8.) enacted that it was not necessary in indictments for forgery to allege an intent to defraud any particular person. (This clause, as in England, has been inserted into our Conso- lidated Statute on Forgery, sect. 51, with the additional words il where it shall be necessary to allege an intent to defraud." — See post, sect. 51.) In this, Hodgson's case, the prisoner had forged and uttered a diploma of the Col- lege of Surgeons : the jury found that the prisoner forged the document with the general intent to induce the belief that it was genuine, and that he was a member of the College, and that he showed it to certain persons
46 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
with intent to induce such belief in them ; but that he had no intent, in forging or uttering it, to commit any particular fraud or specific wrong to any individual
Though the offence charged in this case was under the common law, it must be remembered that S. 8, of 14— 15 Vict., ch. 100, applied to indictments under the com- mon law as well as to indictments under the Statutes, as now also do sect. 44 of the English Forgery Act and sect. 51 of the Canadian Forgery Act.—
Greaves remarks on the deoision in this case : —
" As the clause of which this is a re-enactment (44 of the English Act, 51 of the Canadian Act) was considered in Reg. vs. Hodgson, and as that case appears to me to have been erroneously decided, it may be right to notice it here. The prisoner was indicted at common law for forging and uttering a diploma of the College of Surgeons, and the indictment was in the common form. The Col- lege of Surgeons has no power of conferring any degree or qualification, but before admitting persons to its mem- bership, it examines them as to their surgical knowledge, and, if satisfied therewith, admits them, and issues a document called a diploma, which states the member- ship. The prisoner had forged one of these diplomas. He procured one actually issued by the College of Sur- geons, erased the name of the person mentioned in it, and substituted his own. He hung it up in his sitting room, and, on being asked by two medical practitioners, whether he was qualified, he said he was, and produced this document to prove his assertion. When a candidate for an appointment as vaccinating officer, he stated he had his qualification, and would show it, if the clerk of the guardians, who were to appoint to the office, would
FOBGERY 47
go to his gig ; he did not, however, then produce or show it.
The prisoner was found guilty : the facts to be taken to be, that he forged the document with the general intent to induce a belief that it was genuine, and that he was a member of the College of Surgeons, and that he showed it to two persons with the particular intent to induce such belief in these two persons j but that he had no intent in forging or in altering, to commit any parti-' cular fraud, or any specific wrong to any individual. And, upon a case reserved, it was held that the 14 & 15 Vict., ch. 100, s. 8, altered the form of pleading only, and did not alter the character of the offence charged, and that the law as to that is the same as if the Statute had not been passed; and that, in order to make out the offence of forgery at common law, there must have been at the time the instrument was forged, an intention to defraud some particular person. Now, this judgment is clearly erroneous. The 14 & 15 Vict., ch. 100, s. 8, does, in express terms, alter the law as well as the form of indict- ment, for, it expressly enacts, that " on the trial oi any of the offences in this section mentioned (forging, uttering, disposing of or putting off any instrument whatsoever) it shall not be necessary to prove that the defendant did the act charged with an intent to defraud." The judgment, therefore, and the clause in the Act are directly in con- tradiction to each other, and, consequently, the former cannot be right. The clause, too, was introduced advi- sedly for the very purpose of altering the law. See my note to Lord Campbell's Acts, page 13. It is a fallacy to suppose that there must have been an intent to defraud any particular person at the time of forging the document. In Tatlock vs. Harris, 3 T. R. 176, that great lawyer.
48 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
Shepherd; said in argument, " it is do answer to a charge of forgery to say that there was no special intent to de- fraud any particular person, because a general intent to defraud is sufficient to constitute the crime j " and this position was not denied by that great lawyer, Wood, who argued on the other side, and was apparently adopt- ed by the Court. It is cited in 1 Leach, 206, note a ; 3 Chitty, Cr. L. 1036, and, as far as we are aware, waa never doubted before this case. Indeed, in Beg. vs. Tylney, 1 Den. 319, it seems to have been assumed on all hands to be the law. There the prisoners forged a will, but there was no evidence to show that any one existed who could have been defrauded by it, and the judges were equally divided whether a count for forgery with intent to defraud some person unknown, could, under such circumstances, be supported. It is obvious that this assumed that, if there had been evidence that there was any one who might have been defrauded, though there was no evidence that the prisoners even knew of the existence of any such person, the offence would have been forgery. Indeed it would be very start- ling to suppose that a man who forged a will, intending to defraud the next of kin, whoever they might happen to be, was not guilty of forgery because he had only that general intent.
The point is too obvious to have escaped that able criminal lawyer, Mr. Prendergast, and, as he did not take it, he clearly thought it wholly untenable, and so, also, must the judges who heard the case. See also the obser- vations of Cresswell, J., in Beg. vs. Marcus, 2 C. & K. 356. In Beg. vs. Nash, 2 Den. 493, Maule, J., expressed a very strong opinion that it was not necessary in order to prove an intent to defraud that there should be any
FORGERY. 49
person who could be defrauded, and this opinion was not dissented from by any of the other judges.
It has long been settled that making any instrument, which is the subject of forgery, in the name of a non-exist- ing person, is forgery, and in Wilks' case, 2 East, P. C. 957, all the judges were of opinion that a bill of exchange drawn in fictitibus names was a forged bill. Now, every one knows that, at the time when such documents are forged, the forger has no intent to defraud any particu- lar person, but only an intent to defraud any. person whom he may afterwards meet with, and induce to cash the bill ; and no suggestion has ever been made in any of these cases that that offence was not forgery. The ground .of the present judgment seetns to have been that for- merly the particular person who was intended to be de- frauded must have been named in the indictment : no doubt, it 18 a general rule of criminal pleading that the names of persons should be stated, but this rule is subject to the exception that, wherever the stating the name of any person in an indictment is highly inconvenient or impracticable, the name need not be staged, for Lex ne- minem cogit ad vana seu impossibUia. Therefore, the names of inhabitants of counties, hundreds and parishes need never be stated ; so, too, where there is a conspi- racy to defraud tradesmen in general, the names need not be stated. So, where there is a conspiracy to raise the funds, it is not necessary to state the names of the persons who shall afterwards become purchasers of stock, " for the defendants could not, except by a spirit of prophecy divine who would be the purchasers on a .subsequent day," per Lord Ellenborough, C. J., Rex. vs. de Berenger, 3, M. and S. 67 j which reason is equally .applicable to the case, where, at the time of forging an
D
\
50 THE CRIMINAL 8TATUTE LAW.
instrument, there is no intent to defraud any particular- person. Indeed, it is now clearly settled that, where a conspiracy is to defraud indefinite individuals, it is un- necessary to name any individuals. — R. vs. Peck. 9 A. & E. 686 ; Reg. vs. King, 7. Q. B. 782. This may be taken to be a general rule of Criminal pleading, and it has long been applied to forgery. In 1771, in R. vs. Birch^ 1 Leach 79, the prisoners were convicted of forging a will, and one count alleged the intent to be " to defraud the person or persons who would by law be entitled to themessuages" whereof the testator died seized. — Chitty, Cr. L. 1066. And it has been the regular course in in dictments for forging wills, at least ever since that case, to insert counts with intent to defraud the heir-at-law and the next of kin, generally. — Jerv. Archb. 8th Edit. 370 ; & Chitty Cr. L. 1069. It is true that in general there have also been counts specifying the heir-at-law or the next of kin by name. But in Reg. vs. Tylney, there was no such count. No objection seems ever to have been taken to any such general count. So, also, in any forgery with intent to defraud the inhabitants of a county, hundred or parish, the inhabitants may be generally des- cribed. These instances clearly show that it is not ne- cessary in forgery any more than in other cases, to name individuals where there is either great inconve- nience or impractibility in doing so. A conviction for conspiracy to negotiate a bill of exchange, the drawers of which were a fictitious firm, and thereby fraudulently to obtain goods from the Kitufs subjects, although it did not appear that any particular person "to be defrauded was contemplated at the time of the conspiracy, has been held good, R. vs. Hevey, 2 East, P. C. 858, note a, and this case bears considerably on the present question. If
,
FORGEBY, 51
a person forged a bill of exchange with intent to defraud any one whom he might afterwards induce to cash it, and he uttered it to A. B., it cannot be doubted that he would be guilty of uttering with intent to defraud A. B.T and it would indeed be strange to bold that he was guilty of uttering, but not of forging, the bill. No doubt, the offence of forgery consists in the intent to deceive or Ae<- fraud ; but a general intent to defraud is just as criminal as to defraud any particular individual. In each case, there is a wrongful act done with a criminal intent, which, according to R. vs. Higgins, 2 East R. 5, is suffi- cient to constitute an indictable offence. In the course of the argument, Erie, J., said : " Would it not have been enough to allege an intent to deceive divers persons to the jurors unknown, to wit, all the patients of his late master ? n This approaches very nearly to the correct view, viz. that it would have been enough before the 14 & 15 Vict., ch. 100, s. 8, to have alleged and proved an intent to deceive any persons who should afterwards be- come his patients. Wightman, J., during the argument said, " The question is, whom did he intend to deceive when the forgery was committed f " And Jervis, C. J., said : " The intent must not be a roving intent, but a specific intent." Now, if these remarks are confined: to a count for forging, they are correct; though, in Bolland'8 case, 1 Leach, 83, the prisoner was executed for forging an indorsement in the name of a non-existing person, with intent to defraud a person whom he does not even seem to have known when he forged the indorse- ment.
But it cannot be doubted that a man may be guilty of intending to defraud divers persons at different times by the same instrument, as where he tries to utter a
T>2 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
forged note to several persons one after another, in which case he may be convicted of uttering with intent to de- fraud each of them. Thus much has been said, because it is very important that the law on the subjects discuss- ed in this note should not be left in uncertainty, and it is much to be regretted that Reg. vs. Hodgson was ever de- eded as it was, as it may encourage ignorant pretenders to fabricate diplomas, and thereby not only to defraud the poor of their money, but to injure their health.'7 Greaves, Consol. Acts, 303.
The case of Tatlock vs. Harris, hereinbefore cited by Greaves, is cited by almost all who have treated this question; 2 Russell, 774; 2 East., P. C., 854, &c. In Reg. vs. Nash, ? Den. 493, Maule, J., said : " The Recorder seems to have thought, that, in order to prove an intent to defraud there should have been some person defrauded or who might possibly have been defrauded. But I do not think that at all necessary. A man may have an intent to defraud, and yet there may not be any person who could be defrauded by his act. Suppose a person with a good account at his bankers, and a friend, with his knowledge, forges his name to a cheque, either to try his credit, or to imitate his handwriting, there would be no intent to defraud, though there would be parties who might be defrauded. But where another person has no account at his bankers, but a man sup- poses that he has, and on that supposition forges his name, there would be an intent to defraud in that case, although no person could be defrauded."
And in R. vs. Mazagora, R. & R. 291, it has been holden that the jury ought to infer an intent to defraud the person who would have to pay the instrument if it were genuine, although from the manner of executing
FORGERY. 5$
the forgery, or from that person's ordinary caution, it would not be likely to impose upon him, and although the object was general to defraud whoever might take the instrument, and the intention of defrauding, in par- ticular, the person who would have to pay the instru- ment, if genuine, did not enter into the prisoner's con- templation.— See R. vs. Crooke, 2 Str. 901 ; R. vs- Goate, 1 Ld. Raymond 737 ; R. vs. Holden, R. & R. 754. And even, if the party to whom the forged instru- ment is uttered believes that the defendant did not in- tend to defraud him, and swears it, this will not repel the presumption of an intention to defraud. — R. vs. Shephard, R. & R. 169. R. vs. Trenfield, 1 F. & F. 43, is wretchedly reported, and cannot be relied upon. — 2 Russell, 790, note by Greaves. See also R. vs. Crowther,. 5, C. & P. 316, and R. v. James, 7 C. & P. 153, ou the question of the necessary intent to defraud, in forgery ; and Reg. vs. Boardman, 2 M. & Rob. 147 ; Reg. vs. Todd, 1 Cox 57. Though the present Statute, see postr sect. 51, has the words Jc where it shall be necessary to- allege an intent to defraud " showing evidently that there are cases where such an averment is not necessary, it has been held, in a recent case, by Mr. Justice Quain^ Reg. vs. Powner, 12 Cox 235, that, in all cases, an in- tent to defraud must be alleged. This doctrine seems to have been since repudiated by Martin, B., in Reg. vs. Asplin, 12 Cox 391 ; see post, under sect. 43.
It should be observed that the offence of forgery may* be complete, though there be no publication or uttering of the forged instrument, for the very making with a
fraudulent intention, and without lawful authority, of any instrument which, at common law or by Statute is the Bubject of forgery, is of itself a sufficient completion of
?54 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
the offence before publication, and though, the publica- tion of the instrument be the medium by which the in- tent is usually made manifest, yet it may be proved as plainly by other evidence. 2 East, P. C. 855. Thus in a case where the note, which the prisoner was charged with having forged was never published, but was found in his possession at the time he was apprehended, the prisoner was found guilty, and no one even thought of raising the objection that the note had never been pu- blished. Rex. vs. Elliot, 1 Leach, 175. At the pre- sent time, most of the Statutes which relate to forgery make the publication of the forged instrument, with knowledge of the fact, a substantive felony. — 2 Russell, 709.
Not only the fabrication and false making of the whole of a written instrument, but a fraudulent insertion, al- teration, or erasure, even of a letter, in any maierial part of a true instrument, and even if it be afterwards executed by another person, he not knowing of the deceit, or the fraudulent application of a true signature to a false instrument, tor which it was not intended or vice versa, are as much forgeries, as if the whole instrument had been fabricated. As by altering the date of a bill of exchange after acceptance, whereby the payment was accelerated. — 2 East, P. C. 855 ; 2 Russell, 710; Crim. law Comm. reports, cited supra ; R. vs. Post. R. & R. 101 ; Reg. vs. Hodgson, Dears, and B. 3.
In addition to Wilks's case, 2 East, 957, cited supra by Greaves, as to the principle that the making of any instrument which is the subject of forgery, in the name of a non-existing and fictitious person, is forgery, the following are given in Archbold, 562 : R. vs. Lewis, Poster, 116; R. vs. Bolland, 2 East, P. C. 958; R.
FORGERY. 55
^vs. IiOckett, 1 Leach, 94} R. vs. Parkes, 2 Leach, 773 ; R. vs. Froud, R. & R. 389 ; R. vs. Sheppard, 1 Leach, 236 ; R. vs. Wiley, 2 Leach, 983 ; R. vs. Francis, R. & R. 209 ; R. vs. Webb, R. & R. 405 ,• R. vs. Watts, R. & R. 436 ; R. vs. Mitchell, 1 Den: 282 ; R. vs. Bon- tien, R. & R. 260 ; R. vs. JRogers, 8 C. & P. 629.
Even where a man, upon obtaining discount of a bill, indorsed it in a fictitious name, when he might have .obtained ths money as readily by indorsing it in his own name, it was holden to be a forgery. R. vs. Taft, 1 Leach, 172 ; R. vs. Taylor, 1 Leach, 214 ; R. vs. Mar- shall. R. & R. 75 j R. vs. Wiley, R. & R. 90 ; R. vs. Francis, R. & R. 209.
It is a forgery for a person having authority to fill up a blank acceptance or a. cheque for a certain sum, to fill up the bill or cheque for a larger sum. R. vs. Hart 1 Mood. 486 ; and the circumstance of the prisoner, al- leging a claim on his master for the greater sum, as sa- lary then due, is immaterial, even if true ; Reg. vs. Wil- son, 1 Den. 284.
In respect of the persons who might formerly be wit- nesses in cases of forgery, it was an established point that a party by whom the instrument purported to be made was not admitted to prove it forged, if, in case of its being genuine, he would have been liable to be sued upon it, 2 Russell, 817. But now, see post, sect. 54 of the Forgery Act, and sect. 63 of the Procedure Act of 1869, — Also, sect. 67 of the Procedure Act of 1869.
A forgery must be of some document or writing : there- fore the putting an artist's name in the corner of a picture in order falsely to pass it off as an original picture by that artist, is not a forgery. R. vs. Close, Dears & B. 460 ; though it may be a cheat at common law.
56 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
The false signature by a mark is forgery. R. vs. Dunnr 1 Leach, 57.
When the writing is invalid on its face, it cannot be the subject of forgery, because it has no legal tendency to effect a fraud..* It is not indictable, for example, to forge a will attested by a less number of witnesses than the law requires. R. vs. Wall, 2 East. 953 ; R. vs. Mof- fatt, 1 Leach, 954 ; 2 Bishop, Cr. L. 588.
But a man may be indicted for forging an instrument, which, if genuine, could not be made available by reason of some circumstance not appearing upon the face of the instrument, but to be made out by extrinsic evidence. R. vs. Mcintosh, 2 Leach, 833. — So, a man may be in- dicted for forging a deed, though not made in pursuance of the provisions of particular Statutes, requiring it to be in a particular form, R. vs. Lyon, R. & R. 255.
And a man may be convicted of forging an unstamp- ed instrument, though such instrument can have no operation in law. — R. vs. Hawkeswood, 1 Leach, 257 ; R. vs. Lee, 1 Leach, 258. This question, a few yeare afterwards, again underwent considerable discussion, and was decided the same way, though, in the meantime, the law, with regard to the procuring of bills and notes to be subsequently stamped, upon which in R. vs. Haw- keswood, the judges appear in some degree to have re- lied, had been repealed. The prisoner was indicted for knowingly uttering a forged promissory note. Being convicted the case was argued before the judges, and for the prisoner it was urged that the 31 Geo. 3., ch. 25, S. 19, which prohibits the stamps from being after- " wards affixed, distinguished the case from R. vs. Haw- keswood. Though two or three of the judges doubted at first the propriety of the latter case if the matter
FORGERY. 5T
were res integra, yet they all agreed that, being an au- thority in point, they must be governed by it ; and they held that the Statute 31 Geo* 3. made no difference in the question. Most of them maintained the principle in R. vs. Hawkeswood to be well founded, for the Acts of Parliament referred to were mere revenue laws, meant to make no alteration in the crime of forgery, but only to provide that the instrument should not be available for recovering upon it in a court of justice, though it might be evidence for a collateral purpose ;that it was not necessary, to constitute forgery, that the instrument should be available ; that the stamp itself might be forged, and it would be a strange defence to admit, in a court of justice, that because the man had forged the stamp, he ought to be excused for having forged the note itself, which would be setting up one fraud in or- der to protect him from the punishment due to another. R. vs. Morton, 2 East, P. O 955. The same principle was again recognized in R. vs. Roberts, and R. vs. Da- vies, 2 East, P. C. 955, and in R. vs. Teague, 2 East, P. C. 979, where it was holden that supposing the instru- ment forged to be such on the face of it as would be va- lid, provided it had a proper stamp, the offence was com- plete. Roscoe, 497, 6th Edit.
As to the uttering. — These words, utter, lettering,. occur frequently in the law of forgery, counterfeiting and the. like ; meaning, substantially, to offer. If one offers another a thing, as for instance a forged instru- ment or a piece of counterfeit coin, intending it shall be received as good, he utters it, whether the thing offered be accepted or not. It is said that the offer need not go so far as a tender. — Reg. vs. Welch, 2 Den. 78 ; Reg. vs. Ion., 2 Den. 475 j (See Greaves' remarks on this
$8 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
case, 2 Russell, 838.) But, to constitute an uttering, there must be a complete attempt to do the particular act the law forbids, though there may be a complete conditional uttering, as V^ell as any other, which will be criminal. The words " pay n or " put off" in a statute are not satisfied by a mere uttering or by a tender ; there must be an acceptance also. — Bishop, Stat. Crimes, 306.
The Forgery Act now describes the offence of uttering by the words " offer, utter, dispose of or put off," which include attempts to make use of a forged instrument, as well as the cases where the defendant has actually suc- ceeded in making use of it. — Archbold, 568.
Showing a man an instrument, the uttering of which would be criminal, though with an intent of raising a false idea in him of the party's substance, is not an utter- ing. Nor will the leaving it, afterwards, sealed up, with the person to whom it was shown, under cover, that he may take charge of it, as being too valuable to be carried about, be an uttering. — R. vs. Shukard, R. & R. 200. But the showing of a forged receipt, to a person with whom the defendant is claiming credit for it, was held to be an offering or uttering, though the defendant re- fused to part with the possession of it. — R. vs. Radford, 1 Den. 59.
In R. vs. Ion., 2 Den. 475, supra, cited by Bishop, the rule laid down by the Court is, that a using of the forged instrument in some way, in order to get money or credit upon it, or by means of it, is sufficient to consti- tute the offence described in the Statute. — Archbold, 569.
Giving a forged note to an innocent agent or an ac- complice that he may pass it is a disposing of and put-
FORGERY. 59
ting it away. — R. vs. Giles, 1 Mood. 166. So, if a per- son knowingly deliver a forged bank note to another, 'who knowingly utters it accordingly, the prisoner who delivered such note to be put off may be convicted of ' having disposed of and put away the same. — R. vs. Pal- mer & Hudson, R. & R. 72 ; 2 Leach, 978.
On the charge of uttering, the guilty knowledge is a material part of the evidence. Actus non faeit reurn, nisi wens sit rea. If there is no guilty knowledge, if the per- son who utters a forged instrument, really thinks it gen- uine, there is no mens rea with him : he commits no offence. Therefore, the prosecutor must prove this guilty knowledge by the defendant, to obtain a convic- tion.— 2 Russell, 836.
This is not capable of direct proof. It is nearly in all cases proved by evidence of facts, from which the jury may presume it. — Archbold, 570. And by a laxity of the general rules of evidence, which has long prevailed in the English Courts, the proof of collateral facts is ad- mitted to prove the guilty knowledge of the defendant. Thus, on an indictment for knowingly uttering a forged instrument, or a counterfeit bank note, or counterfeit coin, proof of the possession, or of the prior or subsequent utterance, either to the prosecutor himself or to other jpersons, of other false documents or notes, or bad money, though of a different description^ and though themselves the subjects of separate indictments^ is admissible as mate- rial to the question of guilty knowledge or intent. Taylor, Evid., 1 vol., par. 322. — R. vs. Foster, Pearce & D. 456 ; R. vs. Harris, 7 C. & P. 429 ; R. vs. Millard, R. &R.245; R. vs. Sunderland, R. vs. Hodgson, R. vs. Kirk- wood and R.vs. Martin, 1 Lew. C. C. 102-1 04 ; R.vs. Hough, R. & R. 122 ; R. vs. Weeks, 8 Cox 455 ; R. vs. Aston,
60 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
2 Russell 841 ; R. vs. Lewis, 2 Russell 841 ; R. vs.. Oddy, 2 Den. 264. But in these cases, it is essential to prove distinctly that the instruments offered in evi- dence of guilty knowledge were themselves forged. — Taylor, loc. cit. ; R. vs. Whiley and Baines, 2 Leach, 983 ; R. vs. Ball, R. & R. 132; R. vs. Salt, 3 Fost. & Fin. 834 ; R. vs. Nisbett, 6 Cox 320 ; R. vs. Harrison, 2 Lew. C. C. 118 ; R. vs. Green, 3 C. & K. 209 ; R. vs. Millard, R. & R. 245.
It seems also, that though the prosecutor may prove the uttering of other forged notes by the prisoner, and his conduct at the time of uttering them, he cannot pro- ceed to show what the prisoner said or did at another time, with respect to such uttering ; for these are colla- teral facts, too remote for any reasonable presumption of guilt to be founded upon them, and such as the prisoner cannot by any possibility be prepared to contradict* — Taylor, loc. cit. ; R. vs. Philipps, 1 Lewin C. C. 105 ; R. vs. Cooke, 8 C. & P. 586. In Philipps' case, the judge said : " That the prosecutor could not give in evi- dence anything that was said by the prisoner at a time collateral to a former uttering in order to show that what he said at the time of such former uttering was false, because the prisoner could not be prepared to answer or explain evidence of that description : that the prisoner is called upon to answer all the circumstances of a case under consideration, but not the circumstances- X)f a case which is not under consideration : that the prosecutor is at liberty to show other cases of the pri- soner having uttered forged notes, and likewise his con- duct at the time of uttering them ; but that what he said or did at another time collateral to stick other uttering^ could not be given in evidence, as it was impossible that
"FORGERY. 61
the prisoner could be prepared to combat it." — See Reg. vs. Browne, 2 F. & F. 259, and Paterson's, J., remarks therein on Reg. vs. Cooke, cited ante, and R. vs. Forbes, 7 C. & P. 224. The rule, in such cases, seems to be that you cannot bring collateral evidence of a collateral fact, or that you cannot bring evidence of the collateral circumstances of a collateral fact.
The prosecutor must also prove that the uttering was accompanied by an intent to defraud. As to which, see remarks, ante, on the necessity of this intent in forgery, generally. Baron Alderson told the jury, in Reg vs. Hill, 2 Mood, 30, that, if they were satisfied that the prisoner uttered the bill as true, knowing at the time that it was forged, and meaning that the person to whom he offered it should believe it to be genuine, they were bound to infer that he intended to defraud this person, and this ruling was held right by all the judges. And in Reg. vs. Todd, 1 Cox, 57, Coleridge, J., after consulting Cress- well, J., said : " If a person forge another person's name, and utter any bill, note, or other instrument with such signature, knowing it not to be the signature of the per- son whose signature he represents it to be, but intending it to be taken to be such by the party to whom it is given, the inference, as well in point of fact as of law, is strong enough to establish the intent to defraud, and the party so acting becomes responsible for the legal conse- quences of his act, whatever may have been his motives. The natural, as well as the legal consequence, is that this money is obtained, for which the party obtaining it profess to give but cannot give a discharge to the party giving up the money on the faith of it. Supposing a person in temporary distress puts another's name to a bill, intending to take it up when it becomes due, but cannot
62 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
perform it, the consequence is that he has put another under the legal liability of his own act, supposing the signature to pass for genuine." See B. vs. Vaughan,. 8 C. & P 276 ; R. vs. Cooke, 8 C. & P. 582 ; R. vs. Geach, 9 C. & P. 499.
A consequence of the judgment for forgery was an inca- pacity to be a witness until restored to competency by the king's pardon. — 2 Russell, 844. But now by sect. 62 of the Procedure Act, of 1869, it is enacted that " no per- son offered as a witness, shall, by reason of any alleged incapacity from crime or interest, be excluded from giv- ing evidence on the trial of any criminal case, or in any proceeding relating or incidental to such case." And sect. 63, of the same Act enacts that every person shall be admitted and be compellable to give evidence, in cri- minal cases, notwithstanding that such person has been previously convicted of a crime or offence. (6 and 7 Vict., ch. 85, Imp.)
Indictment. (General form, under Statute.) The jurors for our lady the Queen, upon their oath present,, that J. S. on.... feloniously did forge a certain (here name the instrument) which said forged is as follows : that is to say (here set out tJie instrument verbatim) (see post sections 49 and 50) with intent thereby then to defraud ; against the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.
And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said J. S., afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, feloniously did forge a cer- tain other (state the instrument forged by any name or designation by which it is usually known,) with intent thereby then to defraud ; against the form of the Statute
FORGERY. 6ft
in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.
And the jurore aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said J. S', afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, feloniously did offer, utter, dispose of and put off a certain other forged.... which said
last mentioned forged is as follows: that is to say
(here set out the instrument verbatim) with intent thereby then to defraud, he, the said J. S. at the time he so uttered, offered, disposed of and put off the said last mentioned forged... .as aforesaid, well knowing the same to be forged ; against the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our la- dy the Queen, her crown and dignity.
And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said J. S., afterwards, to wit, on the d&y and year aforesaid, feloniously did offer, utter, dispose of and put off a certain other forged (as in the second count) with intent thereby then to defraud, he, the said J. S., at the time he so uttered, offered, dispos- ed of and put off the said last mentioned forged.... as aforesaid, well knowing the same to be forged ; against the form of the Statute in such case made and provided,, and against the peace of our lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.
This indictment is not intended as a general precedent to serve in all cases of forgery ; because the form in each particular case must depend upon the Statute on which the indictment is framed. But, with the assistance of it, and upon an attentive consideration of the operative words in the Statute creating the offence, the pleader can find no difficulty in framing an indictment in any case. — Archbold, 559.
<64 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
Indictment for forgery at common law. — The jurors for Our Lady the Queen upon their oath present,
that J, S. on unlawfully, knowingly and
falsely did forge and counterfeit a certain writing pur- porting to be (describe the instrument) with intent there- by then to defraud : to the evil example of all others in like case offending, and against the peace of Our Lady the'Queen, her Crown and dignity.
And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said J. S. afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, unlawfully, falsely and deceitfully did utter and publish as true a certain other false, forged and counterfeited writing, purporting to be (describe the instrument) with intent thereby then to de- fraud,— he the said J. S., at the said time he so uttered and published the said last mentioned false, forged and counterfeited writing as aforesaid, well knowing the same to be false, forged and counterfeited, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending and against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity. — Archbold, 599.
At common law, forgery is a misdemeanor, punish- able by fine or imprisonment, or both, at the discretion •of the Court. — By section 45 of our Statute on Forgery, see post, it is doubtful if there is now, with us, any for- gery, at common law.
The Court of Quarter Sessions has no jurisdiction in cases of forgery, 2 Russell 814, and never had : " why V9 said Lord Kenyon, " I know not, but having been ex- pressly so adjudged, I will not break through the rules of law." — R. vs. Higgins, 2 East Rep. IS. — See also Reg. vs. Rigby, 8 C. & P. 770.
FORGING THB GREAT 8IAX, &0. 65
AN ACT RESPECTING FORGERY.
32-33 Vict. ch. 19.
Whereas it is expedient to assimilate, amend and con- solidate the Statute Law of the several Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, re- specting indictable offences by forgery, and to extend the same as so consolidated to all Canada. Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as fol- lows:
FORGING THE GREAT SEAL, &C.
•
Sect. 1 — Whosoever forges, or counterfeits, or utters, knowing the same to be forged or counterfeited, the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, or the Great Seal of the Dominion of Canada, or of any one of the late Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, or Canada, or of any one of the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, or of any one of Her Majesty's Colonies or Possessions, Her Majesty's Privy Seal, any Privy Signet of Her Majesty, Her Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, or any of Her Majesty's Seals appointed by the twenty-fourth article of the Union between England and Scotland, to be kept, used and continued in Scotland, the Great Seal of Ireland, or the Privy Seal of Ireland, or the Privy Seal or Seal at Arms of the Governor General of Canada, or of the Lieutenant Governor of either of the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, or of any person who at any time administered the Government of any of the Provinces now constituting Canada, or of the Governor
x
66 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
or Lieutenant Governor of any one of Her Majesty's Colonies or Possessions, or forges or counterfeits the stamp or impression of any of the seals aforesaid, or utters any document or instrument whatsoever, having thereon, or affixed thereto, the stamp or impression of any such forged or counterfeited seal, knowing the same to be the stamp or impression of such forged or counterfeited seal, or any forged or counterfeited stamp or impression made or apparently intended to resemble the stamp or impres • sion of any of the seals aforesaid, knowing the same to be forged or counterfeited, or forges, or alters, or utters, knowing the same to be forged or altered, any document or instrument having any of the said stamps or impres- sions thereon or affixed thereto, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for life, or for any term not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — 24-25 Vict., ch. 98, 8. 1. Imp.
See post, sect. 58, as to requiring the offender to give sureties for the peace, in felonies' under this Act.
See sect. 94 of the Procedure Act of 1869, as to soli- tary confinement.
Indictment that A. B., on the
Great Seal of the United Kingdom falsely, deceitfully and feloniously did forge and counterfeit, against the
form And the jurors aforesaid, upon their
oath aforesaid, do further present that the said A. B. afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, falsely deceitfully and feloniously did utter a certain other false, forged and counterfeited Great Seal as aforesaid, then well knowing the same to be false, forged and counter- feited against the form Add counts stating the in-
90RGING DOCUMENT SIGNED BY GOVERNOR, ETC. 67
strument to which the counterfeit seal was appended, or which had thereon or affixed thereto the stamp or impression of such counterfeit seal, &c. — Archbold, 571.
Before the recent Statutes, this offence was trea- son.— 1 Hale 183. — See general remarks on forgery.
Upon the trial of any indictment for any offence under this section, the jury may, if the evidence warrants it, un- der sect. 49 of the Procedure Act of 1869, convict the prisoner of an attempt to commit the same. — 2 Russell, 857.
FORGING DOCUMENT SIGNED BY GOVERNOR, LIEUTE- NANT-GOVERNOR, LETTERS-PATENT, PUBLIC REGISTERS, ETC., ETC., ETC.
Sect. 2. — Whosoever forges or fraudulently alters any document bearing or purporting to bear the signa- ture of the Governor of Canada, or of any deputy of the Governor, or of the Lieutenant-Governor of any one of the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, or of any person who at any time adminis- tered the Government of any of the Provinces now con- stituting Canada, or offers, utters, disposes of or puts off any such forged or fraudulently altered document as aforesaid, knowing the same to be so forged or altered is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for life or for any term not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.
Sect. 3. — Whosoever forges or alters, or in any way publishes, puts off or utters as true, knowing the
68 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
same to be forged or altered, any cop j of letters-patent* or of the enrolment or enregistration of letters-patent, or of any certificate thereof made or given, or purport- ing to be made or given, by virtue of any Statute of Canada, of any one of the late Provinces of Upper Can- ada, Lower Canada, or Canada, or of the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, is guilty of felony and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not more than seven years, nor less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour.
8ect. 4. — Whosoever forges, or counterfeits or al- ters any public register or book, appointed by law to be made or kept, or any entry therein, or wilfully certifies or utters any writing as and for a true copy of such pub- lic register or book, or of any entry therein, knowing such writing to be counterfeit or false, is guilty of felo- ny, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Peniten- tiary for any term not more than fourteen years, nor less than two years, or in any gaol or place of con- finement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confine- ment.
These three clauses are not in the English Act. — Sects. 37, 42 and 43, post, also provide for the forgery of cer* tain registers.
As to solitary confinement) see sect, 94 of the Pro- cedure Act of 1869. — As to sureties for the peace, in felonies under this Act, see post sect. 58.
As to indictment, see ante, form under sect. 1, and general remarks on forgery.
Upon the trial of any indictment for any offence
FORGING* TEANSF1R8 OF STOCKS, ETC. 69
under these sections, the jury may, if the evidence war* rants it, under sect 49 of the Procedure Act of 1869, convict the prisoner of an attempt to commit the same,
FORGING TRANSFERS OF 8TOCKS, POWERS OF ATTORNEY,
ETv*, ETC, ETC
Sect. 5. — Whosoever forges or alters, or offers, ut- ters, disposes of or puts off, knowing the same to be forged or altered, any transfer of any share or interest of or in any stock, annuity, or other public fund, which now is or hereafter may be transferable in any of the Books of the Dominion of Canada, or of any one of the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, respectively, or of any Bank at which the same may be transferable, or of or in the capital stock of any body corporate, company or socie- ty, which now is or hereafter may be established by charter, or by, under, or by virtue of any Act of Parlia- ment of the United Kingdom or of any of the late Pro- vinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada or of Canada, or of the Dominion of Canada, or by any Act of the Legisla- ture of either of the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, or forges or alters, or offers, utters, disposes of, or puts off, knowing the same to be forged or altered, any power of attorney or other authority to transfer any share or interest of or in any such stock, annuity, public fund, or capital stock, or any claim for a grant of land from the Crown in Canada or for any scrip or other payment or allowance in lieu of any such grant or land, or to receive any dividend or money payable in respect of any such share or inte- rest, or demands or endeavours to have any such share or interest transferred, or to receive any dividend or money
70 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW.
payable in respect thereof, or any such grant of land or scrip or payment or allowance in lieu thereof as afore* said, by virtue of any such forged or altered power of attorney or other authority, knowing the same to be forged or altered, with intent in any of the cases aforesaid to defraud, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for life or for any term not less than two years, or to be impri- soned in any gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. — 24-25 Vict, ch. 98, s. 2, Imp.
The words in Italics are not in the English Act ; they extend the clause to land claims, scrips, &c, &c, &c.
As to sureties for the peace in felonies under this Act, see post, sect. 58.
As to solitary confinement, see sect. 94, of the Proce- dure Act of 1869.
See general remarks on forgery.
Indictment for forging and uttering a