that there the act of putting the acceptance was a sort of estoppel to say it was not a bill of exchange.

REGINA v. CHARLES PAGE.

An indictment charging that the prisoner on, &c., at, &c., one piece of counterfeit coin, &c., "did utter and put off to A. B., knowing the same to be false and counterfeit," is good, whether the objection of uncertainty as to the time, &c., and in "knowing" be taken before or after verdict.

THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE at the Spring assizes for Herefordshire, in the year 1841, upon an indictment framed under the last clause of the 7th sec. of 2 W. 4, c. 34, for uttering counterfeit money after a previous conviction for uttering on the indictment (set out p. 223).

At the close of the case for the prosecution, and when the record of the former conviction had been put in, it was objected that the present indictment was bad upon its face on two grounds, and that there was besides a variance between the recital in it of the former record and the record itself. The learned Judge reserved the latter point only, but stated the *two former also, that the prisoner might have the proper relief if he was wrong in overruling either. First, it was objected that this indictment was bad for want of an addition of time and place to the allegation of knowledge, which is to be found neither in the recital of the former indictment nor in the substan

[*220]

tive charge on the face of this. It appeared to the learned Judge that as to the omission in the indictment recited, which recital was proved to be correct; that indictment being in the words of the statute, was at all events good after verdict, and that it was proper to recite it accurately according to the fact, and that the statute might and therefore ought to be read so as to import a knowledge at the time of uttering. And that if so read, it sufficiently described the offence, and therefore an indictment framed in its very terms, must be good. It is to be observed, however, that the statute does not introduce any words as to the person to whom the counterfeit money is put off, and so it not only makes any allegation of time and place less necessary, but also avoids the ambiguity which this indictment was alleged to have, the participle "knowing" grammatically referring rather to the party defrauded than to the party charged.

Secondly. It was objected that the indictment did not state any former conviction, because neither the plea nor the verdict of the Jury were recited; but the Judge thought the allegation that "he had been in due course of law tried and convicted by a certain jury,” &c., together with the statement of the judgment, was sufficient.

The third objection was, that the recital of the former record showed a conviction of the prisoner and one Thomas Page, whereas the proof was that the prisoner

[*221]

alone had been convicted, and Thomas *Page acquitted. This seemed to the learned Judge doubtful, and he requested the opinion of the Judges.

This case was considered at a meeting of the Judges in Easter term, 1841, and they all, except LORD DENMAN, C. J., thought the conviction good.

The Lord Chief Justice thought that specifying the name to whom the coin was uttered, introduced an ambiguity. (a)

(a) The Jurors for our Lady the Queen upon their oath present that heretofore (to wit), that at the assizes and general delivery of the gaol of our Lord the late King, holden at Hereford, in and for the county of Hereford, on Saturday the third day of August, in the fourth year of the reign of our late Sovereign Lord William the Fourth, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, &c., before the Right Honorable Sir N. C. Tindal, knight, chief justice of our said late Lord the King of his Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, Sir John Gurney, knight, one of the barons of our late Lord the King of his Court of Exchequer at Westminster, and others their fellows, justices, &c., Charles Page, together with one Thomas Page, by the names and descriptions of Charles Page, late of the parish of Bromyard, in the county of Hereford, laborer, and Thomas Page, late of the same, laborer, was in due form of law tried and convicted by a certain jury of the county duly taken and sworn, between our said late Lord the King and the Charles Page and Thomas Page in that behalf, upon a certain indictment then and there depending against them, the said Charles Page and Thomas Page. For that they, the said Charles Page and Thomas Page, on the fourteenth day of July, in the fourth year of the reign of our late Sovereign Lord William the Fourth, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, one piece of

false and counterfeit coin, resembling and apparently intended to resemble and pass for a piece of the late King's current silver coin called a shilling, unlawfully, unjustly, and deceitfully did utter and put off to one Mary Ann Watkins, spinster, knowing the same to be false and counterfeit, and that they, the said Charles Page and Thomas Page, at the time of such uttering and putting off the said piece of *false and counterfeit coin as aforesaid (to wit), on the [*222] same day, in the year aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, had in their possession, besides the said piece of false and counterfeit coin so uttered and put off as aforesaid, one other piece of false and counterfeit coin resembling and apparently intended to resemble and pass for a piece of the late King's current silver coin called a shilling, knowing the said false and counterfeit coin to be false and counterfeit, in contempt of our said Lord the King and his laws, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace, &c. And further, that the said Charles Page and Thomas Page, on the said fourteenth day of July, in the fourth year aforesaid, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, one piece of false and counterfeit coin, resembling and apparently intended to resemble and pass for a piece of the late King's current silver coin called a shilling, unlawfully, unjustly, and deceitfully did utter and put off to the said Mary Ann Watkins, spinster, knowing the same to be false and counterfeit, in contempt of our said Lord the late King and his laws, to the evil example, &c., &c., against the form, &c., and against the peace, &c.

And thereupon it was considered by the Court there that the said Charles Page should be imprisoned and kept to hard labor in the House of Correction for the county of Hereford for two years, as by the record thereof doth more fully appear. And the Jurors aforesaid, now here sworn and charged to inquire for our said Lady the Queen for the body of the county of Hereford, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said Charles Page, late of the parish of Ross, in the county of Hereford, laborer, having been so convicted

as aforesaid, afterwards (to wit), on the thirty-first day of December, in the fourth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Victoria, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Iaeland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, with force and arms, at the prrish of Ross aforesaid, in the county of Hereford aforesaid, one piece of false and counterfeit coin resembling and apparently intended to resemble and pass for a piece of the Queen's current silver coin called a half-crown, unlawfully, unjustly, deceitfully, and feloniously, did utter and put off to one Elizabeth, the wife of Thomas Hale, knowing the same to be false and counterfeit, in contempt of our said Lady the Queen and her laws, to the evil example, &c., and against the form, &c., and against the peace, &c.

*REGINA v. WILLIAM EWINGTON. [*223]

Perjury cannot be committed in evidence given before commissioners of bankrupt, when there was no good petitioning creditor's debt to support the fiat.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON GURNEY at the Summer assizes, for the county of Warwick, in the year 1841, on an indictment for perjury alleged to have been committed before commissioners of bankrupt.

The first count in the indictment averred that Ambrose Prichard carried on the business of a builder, and that upon the 16th of October, 1837, he was indebted to William Bartlam in the sum of 1007. and upwards, and that on that day he committed an act of bankruptcy, and that upon the 19th of October a fiat issued against him on the petition of Bartlam.