Thompson's case. The in dictment for forging the word " Set tled," at the bottom of a bill, must shew, by proper averments, that it is a receipt. Lyon's case. not filled up for money tutes. "these words, or to shew that they were in any way intended to "signify that those persons had received the money, this indict"ment is clearly bad on the first count; and, as the same objec"tion applies in substance to the second count, though it is differ"ent in point of form, the majority of the Judges are of opinion "that the judgment ought to be arrested." (d) Upon the authority of the foregoing case, it was holden that an indictment for forging the word "settled," at the bottom of a bill of parcels, must shew by proper averments that it is a receipt. The indictment charged that the prisoner did forge, &c. a certain receipt for money, to wit, for the sum of one pound, one shilling, and sixpence; which said false, forged, and counterfeited receipt for money, is as followeth-that is to say, "Settled, J. M." Other counts called it an acquittance. It was objected on behalf of the prisoner, that the indictment should have shewn, by proper averments, that this was a receipt for money, according to the determination in Hunter's case. On the part of the prosecution, it was contended that it did purport to be a receipt made by a person who had a right to demand money, that the evidence proved that the right arose from the sale and delivery of goods according to the bill; and that it was sufficient if the instrument appeared upon the evidence to be of the description stated in the indictment: and Testick's case was cited. (e) And it was further contended that, as the stamp act, (25 Geo. 3. c. 55. s. 7.) had enacted that every note, memorandum, &c. signifying or denoting any debt, account, or demand being paid, settled, &c. should be deemed and taken to be a receipt within the meaning of the act, the necessity of averring such an instrument as the present to be a receipt was taken away. But the Court held, on the authority of Hunter's case, that the indictment was defective. (f) It has been holden that a scrip receipt, not filled up with the A scrip receipt, name of the subscriber or person from whom the money was rewith the sub- ceived, is not a receipt for money within the statutes. The point scriber's name, came on for consideration upon demurrer; and after argument, is not a receipt Grose, J., delivered the opinion of the Judges; and said that the within the sta instrument, the tenor of which was necessarily set forth in the indictment, was not a receipt for money in contemplation of law, within the meaning of the statute 2 Geo. 2. c. 25, &c. That it was the duty of the cashier appointed by the Bank to receive such subscriptions to fill up the receipts with the names of the subscribers, or persons from whom they originally received the money; and, until the blank left in the printed form was so filled up, the instrument did not become an acknowledgment of payment: or, in other (d) Hunter's case, 1794. 2 Leach 624. 2 East. P. C. c. 19. s. 36. p. 928.; and see ante, 362. In 2 East. it is said that Buller, J., thought the second count might be supported, considering this to be as much a receipt as the writing a name was an indorsement on a bill of exchange; but to this it was answered, that an indorsement was complete by writing the name on the bill without any thing more; whereas the name itself, as stated in the indictment, was no receipt; though the name coupled with the navy-bill, might together form a receipt. But then it ought to be so stated. (e) Ante, 464. (f) Thompson's case, cor. Thomson, B., and Graham, B., O. B., 1801. 2 Leach 910. words, a receipt for money. While in such a state it was no more a receipt than if the sum professed to be received had been omitted.(g) Memorandum importing a holden that, executors of a to settle the account of the testator with fabricated estates of the A memorandum importing that A. B. had paid a sum to C. D., but not importing any acknowledgment from C. D. of his having payment, but received it, was holden not to be a receipt within the statute.(h) not a receipt of Where a person who was employed by the executors of a con- the money. tractor with the navy board, to settle the account of the testator Thomas's case; with government, produced certain forged acquittances and receipts where a person for money, and delivered them to the navy board, in order to who was emexonerate the estates of the testator from an extent, it was holden ployed by the to be a forging and uttering, within the statute 2 Geo. 2. c. 25. contractorwith The indictment charged the prisoner with forging and uttering, the navy-board knowing, &c. a great many acquittances and receipts, (which were set forth,) with intent to defraud the king. It was objected by his counsel that the case was not within the statute 2 Geo. 2. c. 25., government, as the receipts in question purported to be receipts given to Col- produced forged acquitlinridge, the contractor, by persons employed by him, for money tances and retherein stated to have been paid to them for work and materials ceipts, which done and provided for the business in which he was employed were in fact under the navy-board, and were produced by the prisoner as vouchers, in vouchers, to accompany and verify Collinridge's accounts, in order order to exto get them passed by the navy-board; which accounts the pri- onerate the soner had taken upon himself, after Collinridge's death, to get testator from passed, in order to avoid an extent which had issued against Col- an extent; it linridge's estate and effects. And it was urged in support of the was a forging objection, that these workmen were solely employed by Collinridge, within the and not by the navy board; and that he, and not the navy-board, statute 2 Geo. were answerable to them. That, therefore, the board had nothing to do with these receipts; and it was indifferent to the board whether these sums had been paid to these several persons or not. The prisoner having been convicted, the case was submitted to the consideration of the twelve Judges, who all, (with the exception of Lawrence, J., who was absent,) held that the conviction was right, and that the receipts, as stated, were within the statute. much within Grose, J., in delivering their opinion, said, "The facts in the case prove that these receipts were forged; and that they purported "to have been given to Collinridge by workmen for monies paid by him to them for work done for the commissioners of the navy"board. The persons, therefore, employed for that purpose by "him, were employed not solely on his account, but on account "of the king; and these receipts, if genuine, would have been "legal vouchers for his account, and would have intitled him to a discharge from the navy-board. It is clear then, from the "facts proved at the trial, and from the verdict of the jury, that "these receipts are forged receipts, and that they were knowingly "uttered by the prisoner with intent to defraud the king."(i) (g) Lyon's case, O. B. 1793. 2 Leach 597. 2 East. P..C. c. 19. s. 36. p. 933. And see several points as to the forgery of scrip receipts discussed in Reeves's case, 2 Leach 808. et sequ. (h) Rex v. Harvey, Russ. & Ry. 227. (i) Thomas's case, 1800. 2 Leach 877. 2 East. P. C. c. 19. s. 36. p. 934. And see Jones and Palmer's case, ante, 368. and uttering, 2. c. 25. Forging a re ceipt in order to found a claim of payagainst a third person, is as ment thereon the statute as forging it to defeat a claim by the person forged. whose name is indictment forgeries. As to the right In the foregoing case a point arose, as to the right of the priof the prisoner to put the prosoner to put the prosecutor to his election, on an indictment statsecutor to his ing various forgeries. The first count of the indictment charged election on an that the prisoner uttered, &c. a certain forged acquittance and restating various ceipt for money (setting it forth), also a certain other forged acquittance and receipt for money, (also setting it forth) and stated in like manner above twenty other receipts of different dates, for different sums, and purporting to be signed by different persons, with intent to defraud the king. And before any witnesses had been examined the counsel for the prisoner submitted to the Court, whether the prosecutor ought not, under the circumstances of this case, to elect on which of the several receipts stated in the first count of the indictment he intended to proceed, and be restrained from proceeding on more than one of them; as, amidst such a variety, it would otherwise be almost impossible for the prisoner to conduct his defence. But Le Blanc, J., referred to the indictment, by which it appeared that all the receipts stated in the first count were charged to have been uttered at one and the same time; and as this single act of uttering the receipts would, if clearly proved, constitute only one offence of uttering, he refused the application. The proof was, that the several receipts stated in the indictment were uttered at the same time in one bundle, given by the prisoner to the solicitor of the navy-board. And when the case was submitted to the consideration of the twelve Judges, they were all of opinion that the application to put the prosecutor to his election was properly refused.(k) Construction as to warrants or orders for It now remains to notice the cases which relate to the instruments which may be considered as warrants or orders for the the payment payment of money or delivery of goods. of money, or It appears at one time to have been contended that the statute delivery of goods. was confined to commercial transactions; but several cases have The statute is decided that it is not so confined. (7) not confined to commercial transactions. Bills of exchange, &c. may be laid as warrants, or It has been frequently holden, that instruments which in the commercial world have peculiar denominations may yet be laid as warrants, or orders for the payment of money; if they fall within those terms, and are such in effect. So that a bill of exchange may be laid as an order for payment of money; (m) and in one of orders for the the cases, where this point was considered by the Judges, they were unanimously of opinion, that it was well laid; and, it was observed, that every bill of exchange seemed to be an order for the payment of money, though not vice versa.(n) And in a sub(k) 2 Leach 882. bearer, sixteen pounds ten shillings and sixpence. payment of money. (1) Graham's case, O. B. 1778. 2 East. P. C. c. 19. s. 41. p. 945. M'Intosh's case, 1800. 2 East. P. C. c. 19. s. 39. p. 942. (m) Locket's case, O. B. 1772. Trin. T. 1774. 1 Leach 94. 2 East. P. C. c. 19. s. 38. p. 940. The instrument was in the following form : London, Feb. 14, 1772. Pay to Mr. William Hopwood or sequent case, the Judges all finally concurred in opinion, that a bill of exchange, or banker's draft, was well laid in the indictment as an order for payment of money; on the ground, that though it was a bill of exchange, it was also a warrant for the payment of money; it was, if genuine, a voucher to the bankers or drawees for the payment.(0) case. In another case, the prisoner, James M'Intosh, was convicted M'Intosh's of forging and uttering, knowing it to be forged, a certain order Instrument for the payment of money in the words and figures following: 66 Petersfield, 6 August, 1799. "Sir, Please to pay on demand to Mr. Hugh Young, or order, "all my proportion of prize money, due to me for my services on "board his Majesty's ship Leander, for which this shall be your "authority. Witness my hand, "JOHN JOHNSON, considered as a bill of exchange, or order for pay ment of money, In two counts it was called an order for payment of money; and in two other counts a bill of exchange; and it was stated to have been forged and uttered, with intent to defraud John Johnson. Four other counts charged the offence to have been committed with intent to defraud Alexander Davison. One of the objections on the part of the prisoner was that this was not a bill of exchange, nor an order for payment of money within the statute 7 Geo. 2. c. 22. because no sum of money was mentioned, and it was not certain that any money would be due to Johnson. The point was referred to the consideration of the Judges, who held the conviction proper. (p) Not an order In a case in which it appeared that the prisoner drew a bill, Ravenscroft's "Please to pay the bearer on demand fifteen pounds, and account case. "to your humble servant, Charles H. Ravenscroft." which was for the payhis own name; but the bill was not addressed to any one; and it ment of money, appeared that when the instrument was uttered, the following words and signature were forged upon it, " Payable at Messrs. "Masterman & Co. White Hart Court, Wm. M'Inerheny;" and The warrant or order must purport to have been made by one having authority to command payment, &c. Mitchell's case. A note to a shopkeeper, in the name of the poor, hold an overseer of en not to be within the statute. Williams's case. A note requesting him to a tradesman it also appeared that M'Inerheny kept cash at Masterman & Co. who were bankers; a majority of the Judges held that this was not an order for payment of money, there being no special averments in the indictment that it was intended for an order, or that Masterman and Co. were bankers. (q) The prisoner drew a forged bill upon the treasurer of the navy, and made it payable to blank or order, and signed it in the name direction to pay to of a navy surgeon. It was holden that such blank or order was not sufficient, and that to constitute an order for payment of money, there must be some payee. (r) It is said, that it seems to be settled, that if the warrant or order mentioned in the stat. 7 Geo. 2. c. 22. do not purport on the face of it, or be shewn, by proper averments, to be made by one having authority to command the payment of the money or direct the delivery of the goods, and to be compulsory on the person having possession of the subject matter of it; but only purport to be a request to advance the money or supply the goods on the credit of the party applying, which the other may comply with, or not as he sees proper, it is not a warrant, or an order within the statute.(s) Thus it was holden, that a note in the name of an overseer of the poor to a shopkeeper, desiring him to let the prisoner have certain goods, which he would see him paid for, has been holden not to be a warrant or order for the delivery of goods within the statute. Nine of the Judges, on a conference, were clearly of opinion, that the writing was not a warrant or order for the delivery of goods within the act; considering that the words warrant, or order, as they stand in the act are synonymous, and import that the person giving such warrant or order has, or at least claims an interest in the money or goods which are the subject matter of it, and has or at least assumes to have a disposing power over them, and takes on him to transfer the property, or at least the custody of them to the person in whose favour such warrant or order is made. And though this case must fall within the mischief; yet, in the construction of an act so penal, the strict letter of it ought not to be departed from. (t) So a note to a tradesman, requesting him to let the bearer have certain goods, has been holden not to be an order for the delivery of goods within the statute, it appearing that the person whose to let the bear- name was forged in the note, though a customer of the tradesman, er have certain was not the owner of, nor had any special interest in the goods in question, or any others in the tradesman's hands, nor had thority to send any such order if it had been genuine. (u) goods holden not to be with in the statute. (q) Rex v. Ravenscroft, Russ. & Ry. 161. (r) Rex v. Richards, Russ. & Ry. 193., and see Rex v. Randall, id. 195. (s) 2 East. P. C. c. 19. s. 37. p. 936. (t) Mitchell's case, Fost. 119. East. P. C. c. 19. s. 37. p. 936. (u) Williams's case, 1775. 1 Leach 114. 2 East. P. C. c. 19. s. 37. p. 937. The point was submitted to the consideration of the Judges, who all (De any au Grey, C. J., and Willes, J., being ab sent) agreed that the case was not within the statute, feeling themselves bound by the authority of Mitchell's case, (note (1); but most of them said they should have doubtIed the propriety of that determination, if it had been res integra; but as it had been so long acquiesced in they thought it could not be departed from. And accordingly in a subsequent case, |