The entire order of a Court, to pay the expenses of a pro-
secution made under the 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 26, must be served
on the county treasurer. Where the order made was to
pay an aggregate sum, the details being annexed, and the
attorney tore off the paper containing the details; held that
the treasurer was justified in refusing to pay. Reg. v.
Jones,
See ASSAULT, 4. MALICIOUS SHOOTING, &c.
An indictment under 9 G. 4, c. 31, s. 12, charging a person
with "feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously" cutting, &c.,
is not enough, inasmuch as the statute uses the word un-
lawfully. Rex v. Ryan and Another,
A count for forging or uttering a "deed, purporting to be a
lease of certain premises," described shortly is good without
setting it out verbatim. Reg. v. Davies,
DEMOLITION.
See RIOTOUSLY DEMOLISHING.
1. Goods of an adjudged felon, stolen from his house, in the
possession and occupation of his wife, may be described in
indictment for larceny as the goods of the Queen. But the
house cannot be so described without office found. Reg. v.
Whitehead,
2. Stealing in a dwelling-house to the value of five pounds or
more by the owner of the house, is within 7 & 8 G. 4, c.
29, s. 1. Reg. v. Bowden,
Dying declarations, to be receivable in evidence, must be
made under the apprehension and expectation of immediate
death. The declarations of a child of ten years of age so
made, held receivable. Reg. v. Perkins,
EMBEZZLEMENT.
See FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, 2.
1. A coachman employed by one proprietor of a coach to
drive a certain part of the journey and to receive money
and hand it over to him, may be charged with embezzling
the money of that proprietor, though the money when re-
ceived by him would belong to him and his partners. Reg.
v. White,
2. A person employed by A. B. to sell goods for him at cer-
tain wages may be convicted of embezzlement as the servant
of A. B., though at the same time employed by other per-
sons and for other purposes. Reg. v. Batty,
See BANKERS, 1. BANKRUPT, 1, 2. CONSPIRACY. FALSE
PRETENCES, 3. FORGERY, 7. PERJURY, 1, 2. RIOT-
OUSLY DEMOLISHING.
EXAMINATION.
See BANKRUPT, 2.
A person may be convicted under 18 Eliz. c. 5, s. 4, of taking
money, &c., though, in fact, no offence liable to a penalty
has been committed by the person from whom the money
is taken. Reg. v. Best,
FALSE PRETENCES.
See RECEIVERS, 1.
1. It is an offence within 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 53, to obtain
goods on payment of a cheque really drawn by the prisoner
on bankers to whom he is unknown and with whom he has
no account, he representing that he has an account, and
knowing that the cheque will not be paid. The indictment
may allege the false pretence to be that the cheque was a
good and genuine order for the payment of, and the value
of, the sum specified. Rex v. Parker,
2. An indictment for obtaining money, &c., under false pre-
tences, must allege that the defendant knew the falsehood.
"Falsely and fraudulently" is not enough. Semble, an
acquittal for larceny of goods is no bar to an indictment
for obtaining the goods under false pretences. Reg. v.
Henderson,
3. Parol evidence is admissible of the false pretences laid in
an indictment, though a deed stating different pretences be
also in evidence. Reg. v. Adamson,
4. An indictment for obtaining money from H. G. H. under
the false pretence that the prisoner intended to marry H.
G. H. and wanted the moneys to pay for a wedding suit he
had purchased is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. Reg.
v. Johnston, .
. 254
5. On an indictment for obtaining money, &c., under false
pretences, a party who had concurred and assisted in the
fraud may be convicted as principal, though not present at
the time of making the pretence and obtaining the money.
Reg. v. Moland,
Goods of an adjudged felon stolen from his house, in the
possession and occupation of his wife, may be described in
indictment for larceny as the goods of the Queen. But
the house cannot be so described without office found. Reg.
FOREIGN BANKS.
See FORGERY, 7.
See ACQUITTANCE, 1. BILL OF EXCHANGE, 1. DEED.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, 3. ORDER.
1. A forged letter, requesting a tradesman to deliver goods
to A. B. on his credit, and vouching for his ability to pay,
may be described as a request within 11 G. 4, and 1 W. 4,
c. 66, s. 10, though the supposed writer have no authority
over or interest in goods, and A. B. only be looked to for
payment. Rex v. Thomas,
. 16
2. Knowingly uttering a bill of exchange, all the names on
which are fictitious, is within the forgery statutes, though
the party uttering intended to provide for the payment of
the bill, the fact of the parties not being real, being un-
known to the person taking the bill. Reg. v. Hill, .
3. A prisoner convicted or confessing to an indictment for ut-
tering a forged "order," ought not to have judgment passed,
if it appears that the person whose name is forged had no
authority to order, and the writing merely purports a re-
quest. Reg. v. Newton,
4. An indictment for uttering a forged bill of exchange is sup-
ported by proof of uttering an instrument in form of a bill
with a forged acceptance on it, though there be no person
named as drawee in the bill. Reg. v. Hawkes,
5. A written promise to pay a sum specified or such other sum
not exceeding the same as A. B. may incur by reason of a
suretyship is an undertaking to pay money within 11 G. 4,
and 1 W. 4, c. 66. Reg. v. Reed, .
6. A charge of forging, &c., an order for the payment of
money, is supported by proof of a foreign letter requesting
a correspondent of the supposed writer in England to ad-
vance money, it being proved that such letters are in the
course of business treated as orders. Reg. v. Raake, . 66
7. It is no defence on an indictment for forging and uttering
an order of a board of guardians of a Poor Law Union, to
show that the person who signed the order as presiding
chairman was not, in fact, chairman on the day he signed,
the forgery charged being of another name in the order.
Reg. v. Pike,
8. Having in possession, &c., the plates of bankers in Upper
Canada, is within 11 G. 4, and 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 18. Reg.
v. Hannon,
9. An indictment for forging, &c., any letter of attorney, &c.,
relating to a pension supposed to be payable under 7 G. 4,
c. 16, s. 38, is good. It is not necessary that the pension
to which the document relates should be actually existing.
Reg. v. Pringle,
10. A request for the delivery of goods may be so described
in an indictment for forgery, &c., without setting it out
verbatim. Reg. v. Robson,
11. A forged request to pay a third person money on account
of the supposed writer will not sustain an indictment for
forgery, describing it either as an undertaking, warrant,
or order for the payment of money. Reg. v. Thorn,
12. A writing directed to A. and Co., requiring them to pay
the bearer on demand a sum of money is not, on an indict-
ment for forgery, a bill of exchange or order for the pay-
ment of money. Reg. v. Curry,
|