Slike strani

bill stamp.


written be falsehood (1); or to fill up a bill-stamp, FOEGERT. signed blank, for the stamp is a sufficient mandate to Not forgery to fill it


with such a sum as its stamp will cover (2). But it may be forgery so to mutilate a bill by cutting part of it off that the obligation implied in a genuine signature which is attached to it, is substantially changed (3). It may

be mentioned here, that it is common to Minor forgeries prosecute cases in which forgeries are made and used, secuted as fraud. under the lower denominations of falsehood and fraud, where the fraud is not heinous.

II. FALSEHOODS BY THE USE OF WRIT, WHICH ARE MINOR FALSELESS HEINOUS THAN FORGERIES. - Such are false seisins by notaries (4), returns by messengers of executions setting forth proceedings which never took place (5), Executions. signatures to executions by witnesses who were not present (6), or false certificates of marriage by clergy- Certificates of men, or of banns by session-clerks (7). Although, in age such cases, where there is no false signature, the crime is not forgery, still the use of them is criminal (8)

To antedate a deed for a fraudulent purpose (9), or Ante-dating to serve a pretended copy of a summons, there being Pretended copy no such summons in existence (10); or to use fabricated letters, certificates, or the like, though not signed, being written in the third person, e.g., “ Mr Letters written “ Brown begs to recommend the bearer as a deserving person.


banns or marri

of summons.

1 Simon Fraser, H.C., Nov. 21st and Dec. 5th 1859; 3 Irv. 467 and 32 S. J. 148.

2 Alison i. 379, 380.

3 See Thomas Forgan, Inverness, April 25th 1871; 2 Couper 30 and 43 S. J. 427 and 8 S. L. R. 493.

4 Hume i. 158, 159, referring to 1540, c. 80, and to the cases of Innes : Cook : Norval : and Moscrop.

5 Hume i. 158, and case of Strachan there.

6 Hume i. 160.

7 Hume i. 162, and cases of Robertson and Pearson : and Craig in note 1.-See also David Gibson, H.C., May 18th 1848; Ark. 489. (Indictment.)

8 Simon Fraser, H.C., Nov. 21st and Dec. 5th 1859 ; 3 Irv. 467 and 32 S. J. 148.

9 Hume i. 160, 161, and cases of Belsches : and Mathie there.

10 John Smith, H.C., Dec. 21st 1852; 1 Iry. 125 and 25 S. J. 176.


Flash notes.




object of charity” (1); or to pass off fictitious banknotes, though there be no signatures upon them (2), are all criminal acts.

As regards both classes of false writings, it is essential to the completion of the crime of falsehood (except in certain statutory cases), that the writing be feloniously used as genuine (3). In practice the forgery or falsehood and the uttering are charged separately,

but this is only to provide for the case of the utterUttering alone ing alone being proved (4); felonious uttering being is a crime.

sufficient to constitute guilt, though the origin of the

forgery be unknown (5). Any use is The uttering is complete by any attempt to use uttering.

the document, however unsuccessful, or however soon But giving for it is withdrawn (6). Merely giving it to another for preservation is

preservation, or to look at, is not uttering (7). But Presenting to offer a cheque for payment, or a bill to be discheque.

counted, either personally or by another hand (8), Posting writ to dispatch the writing by post (9), or to

register it either for diligence, or in any case where

1 Hume i. 174, cases of Branan 154, and cases of Mitchell : Sloan : and others : and Brown in note 1. and Heck or Affleck in note 1.- Alison i. 366, 367, and case of Alison i. 402, 403. Hill there.- Robert Barclay, Nov. 7 See the case of John Reid, 8th 1833 ; Bell's Notes 49.

Sept. 23d 1841; Bell's Notes 58, 2 Alex, Lindsay and Rob. where a person having forged Struthers, H.C., Nov. 19th 1838; 2 another's name as joint acceptor Swin. 198 and Bell's Notes 64. on a bill-stamp, handed it to a

3 Hume i. 148, and case of Ram- third party, only in order that he say and Roy in note 3.-i. 154.- might sign as drawer and endorser, Alison i. 401, 402, and cases of An- and where the indictment was derson : and Devlin there. — Geo. withdrawn, and a new one served, S. Edwards, Aberdeen, Nov. 19th in which this proceeding was only 1827 ; Shaw 194.

set forth as part of the narrative. 4 Hume i. 149, 150.- Whether -See also John Allan, Perth, April this practice is strictly logical may 15th 1834 ; 6 S. J. 321. be doubted.

8 John Reid, H.C., Jan. 8th 1842; 5 Hume i. 155, 156, and case 1 Broun 21 and Bell's Notes 57. of M‘Haffee there, and cases of 9 Will. Harvey, H.C., Feb. 22d M.Cuillin : Bell : M'Neil and

13 Shaw's Session Cases O'Neil : Hughan : Wood or Woods: 1170 and Bell's Notes 57.-Will. M‘Dougal : Macneil and Mackay : Jeffrey, H.C., May 16th 1842; 1 aud Wilson or Moore in note 2.- Broun 337.- John Smith, H.C., Alison i. 398.

Jan. 16th 1871 ; 2 Couper 1 and 43 6 Act 1621, c. 22.-Hume i. 153, S. J. 225 and 8 S. L. R. 331.


another's reposi

after his death.

registration is required by law to give effect to UTTERING. the deed, completes the crime. It has not been Registration. decided whether registration for preservation constitutes uttering (1).

It is uttering to present a blank bill stamp with Uttering blank forged signatures upon it, that the person to whom forged signature. it is delivered may fill up and discount the bill, or keep it as a security (2). But it has not been decided whether the crime is complete if it be merely handed to another to be written out (3); and it is difficult to see how this alone could complete the crime.

The uttering is complete if the writ be placed in Deed placed in another's repositories, and after his decease the person tories to be used who placed it there allow it to be used as a genuine deed (4), or if it be produced in a judicial process, Borgery in court.

Producing whether this be done by the party interested, or by any one instructed by him (5). It is common for the Forger employguilty party to employ an innocent person to utter, person to utter. as by sending him to cash a forged cheque, or to change a false note. In all the cases that have occurred, the document was presented by the innocent agent, and accordingly the presentation has been set forth as part of the narrative of the uttering (6). But should the case arise of the innocent person being Is crime com

pleted stopped before he has actually presented it, or being forgery handed suspicious and handing it over to the authorities, it is person. thought that the giving of the forgery to the innocent person would be held a sufficient uttering (7).


1 Hume i. 154.-Alison i. 403.More ii. 390.

2 Michael Steedman, H.C., Feb. 27th 1854; 1 Irv 360. -John Potter, Stirling, April 11th 1854; 1 Irv. 458. James Alexander, Inverness, Sept. 26th 1865 (unreported).

3 Case of Steedman, supra.

4 James Shepherd, Pe April 26th 1842; 1 Broun 325 and Bell's Notes 58.

Ő Francis Adams, H.C., Sept. 1st

1820 ; Shaw 21.-Jas. Bonella, H.C.. Feb. 13th 1843 ; 1 Broun 517 and Bell's Notes. 59.

6 Jas. Aitchison, Jan. 26th 1835; Bell's Notes 57.

7 Mr Bell, in his notes, p. 57, quotes a case-Rob. Meldrum and Catherine Reid, May 8th 1838-as

nding to show that a forger may utter to an accomplice who is in the knowledge of the deed being forged. But this is plainly incor.


person in

UTTERING. Whether the giving or posting of the false writ to

to agent to be produced an agent, to be produced in a judicial proceeding, be in Court.

enough, is a more difficult question, and it would appear must be answered in the negative (1); as an agent is held to be the party himself, and therefore until he acts upon his instructions, there is no utter

ing Document must In uttering the writ must be put out of the posbe put out of

session of the delinquent. Where possession

handing a bill to another, let it fall to the ground, and was apprehended before it could be taken up, the uttering was held incomplete (2).

The uttering must be with fraudulent intent (3). Can person who A nice question was raised in one case (4), whether had authority to sign, feloniously a person can feloniously utter as genuine a document utter as genuine ?

to which he has attached another person's signature, but with that person's authority, he intending to induce the person to whom it is uttered to receive it as having the genuine signature of the mandant upon it. Lord Cockburn's MSS. contain the following note :"But if the jury believe that both (5) gave "authority, was it a criminal uttering quoad the rect. Criminal uttering of a forgery 1 Francis Adams, Sept. 1st 1820; is uttering as genuine, which is Shaw 21.-Alex. Baillie, March quite inapplicable in the case of an 14th 1825 ; Shaw 131.-Geo. Wilson accomplice. See John Horne, junr., Aberdeen, May 1st 1861 ; 4 H.C., July 14th 1814; Hume i. 150 Irv. 42.-Alison i. 403, 404 contra. note 1, where it was decided that Sir Archibald Alison's statement of vending forged notes to an accom- the cases of Adams and Baillie is plice at an under value was not not quite borne out by the reports uttering It is true that in an as given by Hume and Shaw. He early case some views appear to also erroneously states the case of have been expressed in accordance Baillie to be unreported. with that maintained by Mr Bell 2 Alison i. 402, case of Devlin (case of Bell and Mortimer, H.C., there. July 21st and 22d 1800 ; Burnett 3 Will. Waiters, Inverness, Sept. 188, 189, and Appendix viii. and 23d 1836; 1 Swin. 273 and Bell's Hume i. 150 note 1). But the opin

Notes 58. ions of the judges in that case, in 4 David Ross, Inverness, April so far as they held that giving a 18th 1844 ; (Lord Cockburn's MSS.) forgery to an accomplice could con- 5 There were two persons who stitute uttering, were overruled by were said to have given authority the case of Elorne.

to sign.




“Bank, which relied on the names being genuine ? UTTERING. “I told the jury that if they believed that the

prisoner had mistaken his rights and his duty, and "said nothing to the Bank innocently, then they “could not convict; but that if they thought that he

was consciously misleading the Bank, then his having "signed their names by their permission, was no “ defence.”

Although there must be a fraudulent intent, the uttering need not have the immediate effect of injuring another. Uttering by posting a letter containing Posting letter a false writ, is complete, though the letter never reach forgery. the addressee (1), or though the person to whom it is addressed does not use it (2). It might be a relevant defence that the sending of the document was for preservation, and not that it might be used, but the burden of proof of this would be on the accused.

Lastly, it is not necessary that the writing should be Parpose for uttered for a purpose similar to that for which a docu- used of no ment such as it purports to be, is ordinarily used. In the case already noticed, of a forged diploma being used to disprove a charge of perjury, the objection that this use was not germane to the plain intent of the instrument, and that therefore it was not the uttering of a forgery, was repelled (3). Again, a bill was held uttered by being used to enable a creditor to concur with the accused in applying for sequestration (4).

III. There are numberless cases of fraud and cheat- Fraud AND ing which fall under the general names of Falsehood

which forgery



1 Will. Hervey, H.C., Feb. 22d 1835; 13 Shaw's Session Cases 1170 and Bell's Notes 57.-Will. Jeffrey, H.C., May 16th 1842; 1 Broun 337 and Bell's Notes 57.- Daniel Taylor, H.C., May 16th 1853; 1 Irv. 230 and 25 S. J. 403 (Lord Cockburn's opinion.)

2 John Smith, H.C., Jan. 16th 1871 ; 2 Couper 1 and 43 S. J. 225 and 8 S. L. R. 331.

3 Jas. Myles, H.C., Jan. 7th 1848; Ark. 400.

4 Jas. Bonella, H.C., Feb. 13th 1843 ; 1 Broun 517 and Bell's Notes 59.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »