sion for a sum of money: I saw an advertisement in the Morning Post. I wanted from 1000l. to 50007. I sent a letter to the address named in the advertisement. [I purposely omit names, &c.] After sending that letter I saw the prisoner at the Swan Inn at Alton, Hants, which is eight miles from my residence. I asked him if he could accommodate me with 10007. or 5000l., and upon what interest. He asked me who I was? I told him I was the son of Sir and that I had 60,000l. in the funds, upon which I wished to raise money. The 60,000l. was vested in trustees, and not in my own name. It might form a security, but could not be taken out and sold. He told me that he thought

,

I asked

He said I

he could accommodate me with the 5000Z. what rate of interest would be required. should have it at 67. per cent., and that I might keep the money as long as I chose, provided that I paid the interest half-yearly. He produced ten blank stamps and asked me to accept them. He produced the stamps from his pocket-book: he did not say what was to be done with them, nor did he give any reason why I was to accept them. I wrote on each of them the words, Payable at Messrs. Praed and Co., 189, Fleet-street, London,' and omitted to sign my name. Nothing was written on the stamps at that time but the words I wrote. I did not know what was to be done with these papers when I had delivered them to him. I did not authorize him to do anything with them. I do not remember his mentioning anything that was to be done with them. The prisoner wrote upon each of the stamps 500%. He asked what sum they should be for? and said,

I think we will make them 500l. each. 5007. in figures on each bill."

He wrote

The prosecutor further said,—" In consequence of a letter I received from prisoner, I again saw him at Alton. He said I had omitted to sign my name. He again produced the ten pieces of paper. This was several days after I had given him the papers. I signed them and gave them to him again. He said he would send the money in a few days by the mail. The word accepted' was written on each of them by me, when I signed my name." The prosecutor added, "that he never received one farthing for his bills, which were in the aggregate for 50007." Upon the trial at the Old Bailey, in 1833, the Judges forming the Court were Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, Mr. Baron BOLLAND, and Mr. Justice BOSANQUET, and they all concurred in directing an acquittal, on the ground that it could not be said. the prisoner stole any property belonging to the prosecutor, for the stamped pieces of paper which the prisoner had provided were never in the possession of the prosecutor in such a way as to make them his property. And thus this impudent swindler escaped the hands of justice.

So in the case of a man named Smith, who, professing to be about to pay to the prosecutor money which he was indebted to him, put a receipt stamp on the table, and told the prosecutor to write a receipt for the money, which he did, and while so doing the prisoner pulled out a lot of money from his pocket, as if about to pay it over, but as soon as

*The Queen against Hart, 7 C. & P. 652.

the money.

the receipt was written he took it up, put it in his pocket, and walked out of the room without paying The prosecutor went after him and demanded his money, but the only reply he received was, "Oh! it's all right." And upon a subsequent demand for the money the prisoner produced the receipt as evidence that he had paid the prosecutor. Smith was tried and convicted for stealing this receipt, but the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the verdict, as it could not be said the receipt was the property of the prosecutor.* And so in a very recent case, where the prosecutor had been induced by fraud to accept a bill of exchange, the Court, on the trial of the prisoner for obtaining the bill by false pretences, held, as in Hart's case, the bill was the prisoner's, the prosecutor had no property in it, and therefore it could not be said the prisoner had obtained it.+

The legislature during the last session made another move in the right direction, by passing a statute to reach such persons. It is in these words :

"If any person shall by any false pretence obtain the signature of any other person to any bill of exchange, promissory note, or any valuable security, with intent to cheat and defraud, every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be sentenced to penal servitude for the term of four years, or to suffer such other punish

*The Queen against Smith, 2 Den. C.C. 449.

The Queen against Danger, 27 L.J.M.C.

ment by fine or imprisonment, or both, as the Court shall award."

As in larceny, so where property has been obtained by fraud, the legislature has provided for the restitution of such property to the owner, in like manner as if it had been stolen.*

127

CHAPTER VI.

OF FORGERY.

"To forge," said an old author, "is metaphorically taken from the smith, who beateth upon his anvil, and forgeth what fashion or shape he will."* And there is much reason for the suggestion, forgery being defined as "the fraudulent making, or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's right;" or, according to another high authority, "the false making, with a corrupt mind, of any written instrument, for the purposes of fraud and deceit." Originally forgery at common law was merely a misdemeanor and punishable by fine and imprisonment; but as the importance of throwing the protection of the law around commercial instruments became from time to time manifest, Acts of Parliament were passed, making the forgery of commercial instruments felony, punishable with death. It would serve only to perplex you were I to indicate which forgery is a misdemeanor and which a felony,-which punishable as an offence at common law, which by statute; but as regards the general observations I may make, be good enough to consider them equally applicable to the one as well as to the other.

In the above definitions the word "make" † 4 Blackst. 247.

*3 Inst. 169.

2 E.P.C. p. 852.