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/ssactsengr0586 and id is 1 raw text is: REGINA V. WILLIAMS
Benson, for the prosecution, relied on the case of Regina v. Rodway (a).
[50] Wightman, J.-I think that this -case is distinguishable from that of Regina
v. Rodway. There, when the landlord handed the receipt to the tenant, it was com-
plete and nothing remained to be done but to pay the .money. Here the receipt
stamp was given by the creditor to the debtor for a special purpose, namely, to pre-
pare the receipt ; and it never was in the prosecutor's possession after the receipt
was in a complete state. In the case of Regina v. Rodway, there does not appear
to have been any one present but the parties. Here the thing was done publicly, and
in the presence of an attesting witness ; who, by proving that no money actually passed,
could render the receipt of no value to any one. The prisoner must be acquitted.
Verdict-Not guilty.
Benson, for the prosecution.
E. V. Williams and Nicholl Carne, for the prisoner.
[Attornies-Attwood, and B. Jones.]
[51] March 2nd, 1846.
REGINA V. MARY WILLIAMS.
(An indictment for forging a certain warrant and order for the payment of money
is not supported by proof of the forgery of an instrument which is a warrant
for the payment of money, but which is not an order. A. kept a deposit account,
but not a drawing account, with B., a banker, and A. was not entitled to draw
cheques on B. C. presented a forged cheque of A. on B., which B. paid:-
Held, that this cheque was a forged warrant for the payment of money, but not
a forged order, as A. had, by the course of dealing between him and B., no right
to draw cheques on B.)
[Referred to, R. v. Channetie, 1849, 13 L. T. 0. S. 47.]
Forgery.-The prisoner was indicted for forging a certain warrant and order
for the payment of money, which said forged warrant and order is as follows; that
is to say,
'Messrs. Wilkins & Co., Bankers, Merthyr,
' Please to advance the bearer, Samuel Richards, the sum of two hundred and
fifty pounds, and place the same to my account.
'MORGAN ThOMAS,
' Cold Merchant, Uniscoy.'
with intent to defraud, &c.-There were counts describing the instruments as a
certain order for the payment of money, and a set of counts for uttering; but there
was no count describing the instrument as a warrant only.
It appeared in evidence, that Morgan Thomas, whose name purported to be used
as the drawer of this cheque, had a deposit account with Messrs. Wilkins's bank, but
not a drawing account; and that the course of dealing in such cases was, not to pay
cheques, even if tendered by the depositor himself, unless the deposit receipt was
also produced. In the present case the .deposit receipt was not produced by the
(a) 9 C. & P. 784. In that ease, on an indictment for larceny, it appeared that a
landlord went to his tenant, who had removed all his goods, to demand rent amounting
to 121. 10s., taking with him a receipt ready written and signed. The tenant gave
him £2, and asked to look at the receipt. It was given to him by the landlord, and
he refused to return it, or pay the remainder of the rent. It was proved by the land-
lord, that, at the time he gave the prisoner the receipt, he thought the prisoner was
going to pay him the rent, and that he should not have parted with the receipt unless
he had been paid all the rent ; but that, when he put the receipt into the prisoner's
hands, he never expected to have the receipt again; and that he did not want the
receipt again, but wanted his rent paid :-Held, that this was a larceny, and that the
fact of the tenant giving the £2 made no difference. In the case of Rex v. Oliver,
tried at the Northumberland Summer Assizes, 1811 (cited 4 Taunt. 274), where the
prisoner had offered to give the prosecutor gold for bank notes, and, upon the prose-
cutor layingdown some bank notes for the purpose of having them changed for gold, the
prisoner took them up, and went away with them, promising to return immediately
with the gold: the prisoner did not return, and the prosecutor never saw him again
till he was apprehended : Baron Wood held, that the case clearly did amount to
larceny, if the jury believed the intention of the prisoner was to run away with the
notes, and never to return with the gold; and whether the prisoner had at the time
the animusfurandi, was the sole point upon which the question turned.
2 CAR. & K. 50.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0586&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)