HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0533 and id is 1 raw text is: THE KING V. JAMES GIBSON
of the seaman. It was not till she brought the probate, and from thence and her
own representation appeared to be the executrix of John Wallace (and as such
entitled to his wages), that he would advance the money to her. In that character
and capacity she gave the note, and virtually directed the clerk to write the name
of Mary Wallace over her mark (as the name she had told him before); it was
therefore upon the supposed note of Mary Wallace, the executrix of the seaman,
that this money was advanced : by this note the prosecutor believed that he had a
remedy against that executrix, and that the wages of her husband would be a fund
for repaying him. It now turns out that this was not the note of John Wallace's
executrix, and that he has no remedy upon it against the person whose note it
purported to be, and on whom he relied ; it was therefore a false note, and as such
within the words of the Act of Parliament. Whether, in fact, there [61] be any such
person as Mary Wallace, executrix of John Wallace, a seaman, is totally immaterial.
If an instrument be false in itself, and by its purporting to be the act of another,
a credit is obtained, which would not otherwise have been given, it is a forgery ;
though the name it is given in be really a non-entity, as was decided in the case of
Ann Lewis (Foster, 116). Had the note in question been brought by the prisoner
ready signed with the name of Mary Wallace, executrix of John Wallace, and she
had so obtained the money, it could hardly have been doubted but this would have
been uttering a forgery. And what difference can it make that she signed that
name (under the same misrepresentation) in the presence of the prosecutor, as the
prisoner was an absolute stranger to him ? He had no better means of knowing
whether this was the note of Mary Wallace, than if she had signed it before she
came thither. The falsity of the note and the fraud upon the prosecutor were
precisely the same. Upon the whole, the nine Judges above-mentioned were of
opinion, that the prisoner was liable to a sentence of death. But at a subsequent
meeting it was agreed, that as Mr. Justice Aston was of a different opinion, it would
be proper to recommend the prisoner to mercy.
1766.
CASE XXXIII.
THE KING v. JAMES GIBSON.
(Forging a paper writing purporting to be an office-copy of a report of the Accountant-
General's, of money being paid into the Bank; and also an office-copy of a
certificate of one of the Cashiers of the Bank, is within the statute 12 Geo. I.
c. 32, s. 9.)
[S. C. 2 East, P. C. 899.]
At the Old Bailey in January Session 1766, James Gibson, an Attorney, was
indicted on the statute of 12 Geo. I. c. 32, before Lord Chief Baron Parker, Mr.
Justice Gould, and Mr. Justice Yates, for forging a certain instrument in writing,
purporting to be an office-copy of a report of the Accountant-General, of money
being paid into the Bank pursuant to an order of Chancery, and also an office-
copy of a certificate of one of the Cashiers of the Bank, of the pay-[62]-mcnt of the
money into the Bank. The Second Count was for publishing the same, knowing
them to be forged, &c. The Third and Fourth Counts were, the one for forging, the
other for publishing a writing in form of a writing purporting to be an office-copy
of the certificate of the Accountant-General, and an office-copy of the receipt
of the Cashier of the Bank, which certificate and receipt were set out in all the
Counts as follows:
20th of Feb. 1764.
Between Robert Lee, Esq. and Christopher D'Oyley, Esq. executors of Sir
George Browne, Baronet, plaintiffs, and Robert Pringle, Esq. and others, defendants.
By original and supplemental bills, and bills of reviver.
I do hereby certify, that pursuant to an order dated the thirteenth of February
instant, Mr. William Hunt, the Receiver, hath paid into the Bank of England the
sum of four hundred and thirty-seven pounds thirteen shillings and seven pence,
which is placed to my account as Accountant-General, and to the credit of the cause
of Browne v. Pringle, in Master Bennet's office ; as appears by the receipt of Mr.
B. Sabbarton, one of the Cashiers of the Bank, dated the sixteenth instant, hereto
annexed. T. Anguish,
Accountant-General.
1 LEACH 61.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0533&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)