A Synopsis of the Law relating to Indictable Offences, etc

EVIDENCE.

OBSERVATIONS.

Presumptive evidence is in general all that can be offered; such as finding false coin in the prisoner's possession, or coining tools in his house, and counterfeit money in a finished and unfinished state; or such other circumstances as may fairly lead to the inference that the prisoner either counterfeited, or caused to be counterfeited, or aided or abetted in the counterfeiting of the coin in question. See a case where the Judges thought the evidence too slight to support a conviction. Isaac's case, 1 Russ. 62; Rosc. Cr. Ev. 348; Arch. 8 ed. 497.

A variance as to the number of pieces of coin alleged to be counterfeited, is immaterial; otherwise, as to the denomination of such coin, as sovereigns, shillings, etc. (a). As to the venue, etc. see note infra. The fact that the coin counterfeited or resembled is the Queen's current gold or silver, is sufficiently proved by evidence of common usage or reputation. It is necessary to prove that the coin in question is counterfeit, and that it resembles, or is intended to resemble the Queen's current gold or silver coin (b); but it is not necessary to prove that it was uttered or attempted to be uttered (c). How the coin may be proved to be in fact false, is provided for by the statute; see sect. 17, in notá; and by sect. 3, the offence of counterfeiting shall be deemed complete, although the coin made or counterfeited shall not be in a fit state to be uttered, or the counterfeiting thereof shall not be finished or perfected(d). The question of resemblance or intended resemblance between the alleged false and the true coin, is one of fact for the jury; where the genuine coin is worn (a) Arch. 8 ed. (b) 1 Hale, 213.

Prec. of Indict. Arch. Id; Matt. C. L. 443.

(d) See Rosc. Cr. Ev. 2 ed.

349. Cases under the repealed statute, Varley's case, 2 W. Bl. 682; 1 East. P. C. 164; Harris' case, 1 Leach, 161.

found, unless good cause shall be shown by the prisoner, or the prosecutor. Proof of coin being counterfeit.-Sect. 17 declares, it shall not be necessary to prove any coin to be false and counterfeit by the evidence of any moneyer or other officer of His Majesty's mint, but it shall be sufficient to prove the same by any other credible witness. Interpretation clause. -Sect. 21 declares and enacts what shall be deemed current coin'counterfeit coin'—and what shall be deemed to be a criminal possession' by any party, where the having any matter in the custody or possession of any person is by the act expressed to be an offence.

EVIDENCE.

OBSERVATIONS.

smooth, a counterfeit bearing no impression is within the law (a) ; so also where there is some small variation in the inscription, effigies, or arms, from the lawful coin of the kingdom (b).

(a) Welsh's case, 1 East, P. C., 164; 1 Leach, 293; Wilson's case 1 Leach, 285.

Prove the gilding or colouring, etc. or the filing or altering, as stated in the indictmentthe intent from the circumstances - where colouring or washing is charged, it must be shown (in order to meet the words of the section, "capable of producing,") that the wash or materials were capable of producing the colours of gold or silver. Rosc. Cr. Ev. 2 ed. 350; Arch. 8 ed. 498, 500.

Prec. of Indict. Arch. 498, 9; Matt. C. L. 444.

(a) Cases' case, 1 Leach, 145; 1 East, P. C. 165; Lacey's case, 1 Leach, 153; 1 East, P. C. 166.

(b) 8 & 9 Wm. iii. c. 26; 15 Geo. ii. c. 28.

Prove the diminishing or impairing, by direct evidence or inferential; as that the defendant had diminished coin in his possession, or the filings of impaired coin, or instruments for filing-the intent from the circumstances, as that he had attempted to pass the coin, or other coin so impaired, or that such coin was found upon his person; and if mixed with other money, and apparently not so impaired as to affect its currency, the presumption of a criminal intent will be strengthened. Rosc. Cr. Ev. 2 ed. 350; Arch. 8 ed. 500.

Prec. of Indict. Arch. Id.; Matt. C. L. 444.

(b) 1 Hale, 215.

As to the venue, etc. see ante, p. 60 n. The doubts arising upon cases (a) under the former statutes (b), seem to have led to the introduction of the words capable of producing" in the present (c). The act of colouring may be proved by evidence, that coin so coloured was found in the prisoner's house, or had been procured there, and that the wash or materials required for the purpose were discovered in his possession (d).

An indictment charging the use of such materials, will be supported by proof of a colouring with gold itself (e).

(e) Turner's case, 2 Mood.

C. C. 41.

As to the venue, etc. see ante, p. 60, n.

EVIDENCE.

Prove that the money was put off, etc. as mentioned in the indictment, and that it was counterfeit (vide ante, p. 61)— prove the price alleged to have been given—the names of the parties to whom the putting off took place, or that it was to persons unknown. Rosc. Cr. Ev. 2 ed. 354; Arch. 8 ed. 501.

Prec. of Indict. Matt. C. L. 444.

Arch. Id. ;

OBSERVATIONS.

As to the venue, etc. see ante, p. 60 n. Under the former statute (a) it was held that an offer to put off false money was not indictable (b); but such an offence is provided for in the present act by this sect. which seems to include all the acts of persons who deal in false coin (c). The averment as to the price paid must be proved as laid, being in the nature of an allegation of a contract; as where the indictment stated that five counterfeit shillings were put off for two shillings, but the proof was that they were sold for two shillings and sixpence, an acquittal was directed (d); but where the charge was the putting off a counterfeit sovereign and three counterfeit shillings, for five shillings; and the evidence was that the sovereign was sold for four shillings, and the shillings for one shilling, it was held sufficient, because the whole was one transaction (e). The present statute does not include the putting off, etc. of money unlawfully diminished and not cut in pieces, for less value, as was prohibited by the former act, and which therefore is no longer a statutable offence.

(a) 8 & 9 Wm. iii. c. 26.

(b) Woolridge's case, 1 Leach. East, P. C. 179.

307;

(d) Joyce's case, 3 C. & P. 4,

11; per Thompson, C. B.; and Heath, J.

(e) Hodge's case, 3 C. & P. 410; per Vaughan, B. (f) Arch. 8 ed. 502.

Prove that the defendant imported the counterfeit cointhe defendant's guilty knowledge. Arch. 8 ed. 503.

Prec. of Indict. Arch. 502; Matt. C. L. 445.

(a) 1 Hale, 128; 1 East, P. C. 175.

As to the venue, etc. see ante, p. 60 n. Unless a guilty knowledge be averred and proved, there is no offence (a). So also it would seem to be no offence within this sect. where the importation is from the Queen's dominions beyond the seas (b); because the counterfeiting there is punishable by the laws of England, and an importer from thence would only be punishable as an utterer of counterfeit coin.

(b) 1 Hawk. c. 17, s. 87; 1 East, P. C. 156.

« 이전 계속 »

도서