state of the coinage at the time. (1) Thus, where the genuine coin is worn smooth, a counterfeit bearing no impression is within the law, for it may deceive the more readily for bearing no impression, and in the deception the offence consists. Welsh's case, 1 East, P. C. 164; 1 Leach, 293; Wilson's case, 1 Leach, 285. Nor will a variation, not sufficient to prevent the deception, render the coin less a counterfeit. Thus it is said by Lord Hale, that counterfeiting the lawful coin of the kingdom, yet with some small variation in the inscription, effigies, or arms, is a counterfeiting of the king's money. 1 Hale, P. C. 215.

It is not necessary to prove that the counterfeit coin was uttered, or attempted to be uttered. 1 Hale, 215, 229; 3 Inst. 16; 1 East, P. C. 215.

Where in an indictment a four-penny piece was called a groat, it was held that if the jury, from their own knowledge of the English language, without considering any evidence at all, were of opinion that a groat and a four-penny piece were the same, the prisoner was rightly indicted, and might be convicted. Reg. v. Connel, 1 C. & K. 190.a

Proof of colouring counterfeit coin or metal—and filing, and altering legal coin.] By the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, s. 4, "if any person shall gild or silver, or shall, with any wash or materials capable of producing the colour of gold or of silver, wash, colour, or case over any coin whatsoever, resembling or apparently intended to resemble, or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin, or if any person shall gild or silver, or shall, with any wash or materials capable of producing the colour of gold or of silver, wash, colour, or case over any piece of silver or copper, or of coarse gold, or coarse silver, or of any metal or mixture of metals respectively, being of a fit size and figure to be coined, and with intent that the same shall be coined into false and counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin; or if any person shall gild, or shall, with any wash or materials capable of producing the colour of gold, wash, colour, or case over any of the king's current silver coin, or file, or in any manner alter such coin, with intent to make the same resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold coin; or if any person shall gild or silver, or shall, with any wash or materials capable of producing the colour of gold or silver, wash, colour, or case [*391] *over any of the king's current copper coin, or file, or in any manner alter such coin, with intent to make the same resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin; every such offender shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for life, or for any term not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding four years."

As to the power of awarding hard labour and solitary confinement, in cases of imprisonment, see ante, p. 389.

The act of gilding, or silvering, or colouring, or washing must be proved; and in the latter case, it must appear that the wash or materials were capable of producing the colour of gold or silver. The words of the former statute were "with any wash or materials producing the colour, &c." Doubts arose upon the effects of these words, where the colour of gold or silver had not been actually produced, but the coin wanted some further operation to fit it to be passed. Case's case, 1 East, P. C. 165; 1 Leach, 154 (n.); Lavey's case, 1 Leach, 153; 1 East, P. C.

166. The doubts, however, cannot exist upon an indictment under the 2 Wm. 4, which makes it immaterial whether the colour has been in fact produced. 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. An indictment charging the gilding sixpences with materials capable of producing the colour of gold, is supported by proof of colouring sixpentes with gold itself. Reg. v. Turner, 2 Moo. C. C. 42.

Proof of impairing or diminishing the coin.] By the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, s. 5, "if any person shall impair, diminish, or lighten, any of the king's current gold or silver coin, with intent to make the coin so impaired, diminished, or lightened, pass for the king's current gold or silver coin, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for any term not exceeding fourteen years, nor less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three years."

The act of diminishing or impairing, if not shown by direct evidence, may be proved by circumstances, as showing that the prisoner had diminished coin in his possession, and also filing, &c. The intent to pass such coin must then be proved, and if found upon his person, it would be a question for the jury to say whether he did not intend to pass it.

Proof of uttering counterfeit gold or silver coin.] The various offences, with regard to the uttering false gold or silver coin, are comprised within the 7th section of the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, which enacts, "that if any person shall tender, utter, or put off any false or counterfeit coin, resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, every such offender shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland, of a crime and offence, and, being convicted thereof, shall be imprisoned for any term not *exceeding one year; and [*392] if any person shall tender, utter, or put off any false or counterfeit coin, resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, and such person shall, at the time of such tendering, uttering, or putting off, have in his possession, besides the false or counterfeit coin so tendered, uttered, or put off, one or more piece or pieces of false or counterfeit coin, resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for, any of the king's current gold or silver coin, or shall, either on the day of such tendering, uttering, or putting off, or within the space of ten days then next ensuing, tender, utter, or put off any more or other false or counterfeit coin, resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, every such offender shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland, of a crime and offence, and, being convicted thereof, shall be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years; and if any person who shall have been convicted of any of the misdemeanors, or crimes and offences hereinbefore mentioned, shall afterwards commit any of the said misdemeanors, or crimes and offences, such person shall, in England and Ireland, be deemed guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for

life, or for any term not less than seven years, or be imprisoned for any term not exceeding four years."

Where a prisoner was convicted under the first part of the above section, of two separate utterings contained in two counts of the same indictment, the judges held that one judgment for two years' imprisonment was bad, and that there should have been two consecutive judgments of one year's imprisonment each. son's case, 1 Moo. C. C. 413.

Robin

Proof of uttering counterfeit gold or silver coin-evidence of the simple uttering.] Upon an indictment for the simple offence of uttering, the prosecutor must prove the act of uttering, &c. as charged, that the money was counterfeit, and that the prisoner knew it to be such. The practice of " ringing the changes" was held to be an offence under the repealed statute, 15 Geo. 2, c. 28; Frank's case, 1 Leach, 644; and it is so likewise under the present act. The coin must be proved to be counterfeit in the usual way.

The mode of proving guilty knowledge has been already considered at length, ante, p. 90.

A prisoner was indicted for uttering a base coin; it was proved that he had uttered a counterfeit shilling; and in order to show a guilty knowledge, the counsel for the prosecution tendered in evidence the facts of five other counterfeit shillings having been found in his possession five days after. Taunton, J., after conferring with Alderson, B., held the evidence admissible. Harrison's case, 2 Levin, C. C. 118. This decision is at variance with Taverner's case, ante, p. 94; but seems the more correct ruling.

Where several persons are charged with an uttering it must appear either that they were all present, or so near to the party actually uttering, as to be able to afford [ *393] him aid and assistance. Three *persons were indicted for uttering a forged note, and it appeared that one of them uttered the note in Gosport while the other two were waiting at Portsmouth till his return, it having been previously concerted that the prisoner who uttered the note should go over the water for the purpose of passing the note, and should rejoin the other two. All the prisoners having been convicted, it was held that the two prisoners who had remained in Portsmouth, not being present at the time of uttering, or so near as to be able to afford any aid or assistance to the accomplice who actually uttered the note, were not principals in the felony. Soares's case, Russ. & Ry. 25; 2 East, P. C. 974. The two prisoners were charged with uttering a forged note. It appeared that they came together to Nottingham, and left the inn there together, and that on the same day, between two and three hours from their leaving the inn, one of the prisoners passed the note; both the prisoners being convicted, the judges held the conviction wrong as to the prisoner who was not present, not considering him as present aiding and abetting. Davis's case, Russ. & Ry. 113.a

If two utterers of counterfeit coin, with a general community of purpose, go different ways and utter coin apart from each other, and not near enough to assist each other, their respective utterings are not joint utterings by both. Manners's case, 7 C. & P. 801. But it was held by Erskine, J., that if two persons having jointly prepared counterfeit coin, plan the uttering, and go on a joint expedition, and, utter in concert and by previous arrangement the different pieces of coin, then the act of one would be the act of both, though they might not be proved to be actually together at each uttering. Hurse's case, 2 Moo. & R. 360.

b2 Eng. C. C. 413. 1 Eng. C. C. 25.

¿ Id. 113.

Eng. C. L. Reps. xxxii. 743.

The giving of a piece of counterfeit coin in charity was held not an uttering within the statute, although the person might know it to be counterfeit, for there must be some intention to defraud. Page's case, 8 C. & P. 122. See 1 Russ. by Grea. 72, (n.) where the correctness of this decision is doubted. The ruling in Page's case has also been thought questionable by Denman, C. J., and Coltman, J., in a recent trial at the Central Criminal Court, in which it was held, that if a person gave a counterfeit coin to a woman with whom he had shortly before had intercourse, it was an uttering within the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, s. 7; Reg. v. 1 Cox, C. C. 250. As to a joint uttering by a husband and wife, see post, title, Coercion by husband.

Proof of uttering counterfeit gold or silver coin-evidence of the compound offence of uttering, having other counterfeit coin in possession.] Where the charge is for the compound offence, the prosecutor must prove, in addition to the evidence required to support the charge of simply uttering, that the prisoner had, at the time of the tendering, other counterfeit coin in his possession. The statute does not require that an intent to pass the latter coin should be proved. The nature of the possession is explained by the interpretation clause of the new statute. Vide post. The following case arose, with regard to this point, upon the repealed statute, 15 Geo. 2, c. 28, s. 3. A man and a woman were jointly indicted for uttering a counterfeit shilling, having about them, &c. another counterfeit shilling, knowing, &c. It appeared *that they came together to a public house, and the woman, in [*394] the absence of the man, paid away the counterfeit shilling; that on the same day the man went to another public-house and offered to sell a large quantity of counterfeit shillings; and that on the following day the prisoners were apprehended while in bed. Near the bed was found a quantity of bad half-pence, some silver, (four shillings and sixpence) in the man's pocket, which was good, and one shilling and sixpence bad; and concealed under his arm was found a paper parcel of bad shillings, which, if good, would have been worth 147.; in the woman's pocket were found a good half-crown, seven good shillings, and six counterfeit shillings, like the counterfeits found in the paper under the man's arm. Upon this evidence it was insisted for the prisoners that there was no ground to convict the man, he not having uttered the shilling, nor being present at the time the woman uttered it. With respect to the woman, she could only be convicted of the simple offence of uttering the shilling, it not appearing that, at the time of uttering it, she had any other counterfeit money about her. Both the prisoners being convicted, the judges held the conviction of the woman for the single offence good, but not good for uttering and having about her at the time other money; and as to the conviction of the man, they held it could not be supported. Else's case, Russ. & Ry. 142. See also Reg. v. Page & Jones, 1 Russ. by Grea. 82, and Mr. Greaves's note thereon. In the following case, two persons were convicted of a joint uttering, having another counterfeit shilling in their possession, although the latter coin was found upon the person of one of them only. It appeared that one of the prisoners went into a shop and there purchased a loaf, for which she tendered a counterfeit shilling in payment. She was secured, but no more counterfeit money was found upon her. The other prisoner who had come with her, and was waiting at the shop-door, then ran away, but was immediately secured, and fourteen bad shillings were found upon her, wrapped in gauze paper. It was objected that the complete offence stated in the indictment was not proved against either of the prisoners, and the above case of 'Eng. Com. Law Reps. xxxiv. 322. 1 Eng. C. C. 143.

R. v. Else was cited. Garrow, B., was of opinion that the prisoners coming together to the shop, and the one staying outside, they must both be taken to be jointly guilty of the uttering, and that it was for the jury to say, whether the possession of the remaining pieces of bad money was not joint. The jury found both the prisoners guilty. Skerritt's case, 2 C. & P. 427.h

Proof of previous conviction.] By the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, s. 9, "where any person [who] shall have been convicted of any offence against this act, shall afterwards be indicted for any offence against this act, committed subsequent to such conviction, a copy of the previous indictment and conviction, purporting to be signed and certified as a true copy by the clerk of the court or other officer having the custody of the records of the court where the offender was first convicted, or by the deputy of such clerk or officer, shall, upon proof of the identity of the person of the offender, be sufficient evidence of the previous indictment and conviction, without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed and certified the same."

[ *395] Where a prisoner was indicted under the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, s. 7, for *uttering counterfeit money under a previous conviction, and the indictment alleged that the prisoner, "together with one T. P., was in due form of law tried and convicted" by a jury upon an indictment against them, for that they did unlawfully utter a shilling "to A. W., knowing the same to be false," and thereupon it was considered that the prisoner should be imprisoned for two years; and that the prisoner afterwards feloniously did utter a half-crown "to T. H., knowing the same to be false." The copy of the record of the former trial stated the conviction of the prisoner, and the acquittal of T. P. It was objected, first, that the indictment was bad for want of addition of time and place to the allegation of knowledge, which was found to be neither in the recital of the former indictment, nor in the substantive charge on the face of the present indictment; but Coleridge, J., thought that the former indictment was good, being in the words of the statute, and after verdict; and that "knowing" in the present indictment being a participle in the present tense, must import knowledge at the time of uttering. Secondly, that the word "knowing" did not fefer to the prisoner, but to A. W. and T. H.; but the learned judge thought that "knowing" did refer to the prisoner, as all that was alleged to be done was alleged to be done by him. Thirdly, that the indictment did not state any former conviction, because neither the plea nor the verdict of the jury were recited; but the learned judge thought that the allegation that he had been in due course of law tried and convicted, together with a statement of the judgment, was sufficient. Fourthly, that the recital of the former record showed the conviction of the prisoner, and T. P., whereas the record produced showed that the prisoner alone had been convicted, and T. P. acquitted, and therefore there was a variance. The learned judge entertaining some doubt on this point, reserved not only it, but the whole case for the opinion of the judges. They all thought the conviction good, except Lord Denman, C. J., who thought that specifying the name to whom the coin was uttered introduced an ambiguity. Reg. v. Page, 1 Russ. by Grea. 83; S. C. 2 Moo. O. C. R. 219.

Proof of buying or selling counterfeit coin for less value than its denomination— importing counterfeit coin.] By the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, s. 6, "if any person shall buy, sell, receive, pay, or put off, or offer to buy, sell, receive, pay, or put off, any false or counterfeit coin resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for,

b Eng. Com. Law Reps. xii. 203.