the coining of a shilling, and an impression made by the dies was produced in court.

Mr. Serjt. Adams, for the prisoner, objected that the prisoner could not be convicted, as he had not himself done anything in the construction of the die, and that he was not answerable in this form of charge for the act of Carter. That Carter having acted under the instructions of the Mint, no felony whatever had been committed; and that the prisoner should have been indicted for a misdemeanor, in inciting Carter to commit a felony.

The learned Judge reserved the point for the opinion of the Judges. The Jury found the prisoner guilty.

This case was argued in Easter term, 1844, before all the Judges except COLERIDGE, J., and MAULE, J. WHITEHURST, for the prisoner.

The prisoner did not commit the offence as charged in the indictment. The statute 2 W. 4, c. 34, s. 10, enacts, that "if any person shall knowingly and without lawful authority (the proof of which authority shall lie on the party accused) make, &c., or begin to make, any puncheon, &c., die, &c., such person shall be guilty of felony. Here no person has, without lawful authority, made or begun to make a die. The only person who has in fact made or begun to make a die is Carter. Before Carter begins, he applies to the Mint. He must be taken to have known the law, and

applies to get their authority to proceed. The officers of the Mint gave him orders to proceed; he therefore had lawful authority. If they had power to give the authority, then there was no offence. If they had not, then Carter is guilty of the felony as a principal, and the prisoner ought to have been indicted as an accessary *before the fact. If Carter was inno

[*312]

cent, the prisoner could not be an accessary, nor could he be a principal: he is not present; and if another does the act for him in his absence, that person must be altogether innocent: to be innocent he must be ignorant of any wrong in what he is doing. Suppose a person knowingly employs an ignorant agent to deliver a forged note, the delivery is his, because the agent is ignorant; so if a person employs an ignorant agent to administer poison, that person may be said himself to administer. Carter here cannot be said to be ignorant. He knows the use to which the dies are applicable, and the guilty purpose for which they were intended by the prisoner. The dies are also made with the knowledge of the Mint. For these reasons Carter cannot be said to be a mere ignorant agent of the prisoner, and therefore the prisoner cannot be a principal felon.

WADDINGTON for the Crown.

There is no doubt that, if Carter was guilty of felony, this indictment fails. But it is impossible to contend that on these facts Carter was a felon. Perhaps,

strictly speaking, no one could have lawful authority to make coining instruments; certainly not, if Carter had not.

TINDAL, C. J. The "having lawful authority," applies to the officers and servants of the Mint.

It is agreed that in one sense he did the act knowingly; but mere knowledge is not enough. The statute means guilty knowledge; and that is the distinction clearly pointed out in Foster's Discourse on Accomplices, p. 349, &c. To be a felon there must be a guilty knowledge. The cases of the child or madman are well established. Now Carter certainly knew what he was doing, but had no intention of any felony or furthering a felony; and the authority and knowledge of the Mint, would be clearly sufficient to make his knowledge innocent.

[*313]

In Rex v. Palmer and Hudson, Russ. and Ry. 72, which is reported with the judgment delivered by ROOKE, J., 1 New Rep. 97, this distinction is carried out, and the case put of an uttering a forged note by means of an agent ignorant of the forgery, is stated to be law. This has since been held to be law in Rex v. Giles, Moody, C. C. R. 166. The agent must be an innocent agent. The cases all turn on the distinction of innocent knowledge or guilty knowledge. Carter was clearly an innocent agent, and the prisoner was therefore the principal.

WHITEHURST, in reply.

Here Carter, the agent, in fact does nothing at all

until he has the orders of the Mint. He is throughout the agent of the Mint, not of the prisoner.

All the Judges present, except CRESSWELL, J., thought Carter an innocent agent, and held the conviction good.

INDEX

TO THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

ACCEPTANCE.

See FORGERY, 4.

ACCESSARY.

1. The Central Criminal Court has jurisdiction to try acces-
saries before the fact to the felony of "casting away and
destroying a ship" on the high seas, on an indictment in
the usual form, though the principal felon be not amenable
to justice. The underwriters on a policy on goods fraudu-
lently made, are within 1 Vict. c. 89, s. 6, though no
goods were put on board. Reg. v. Wallace,

ACQUITTANCE.

1. Where it was shown to be the custom of bankers to give
receipts on the deposit of money in the following form:
"Received of A. B. eighty-five pounds to his credit. This
receipt not transferable;" and to repay the money with in-
terest on the return of the receipt, with A. B.'s name
written on it. Held that forging the name of A. B. and
receiving the money due, on its return, was a forging and
uttering an acquittance, for 857. Reg. v. Atkinson,

AFFIRMATION.

A person formerly a Quaker, who has seceded from that sect

. 200

215