REG. v. 1855. Concealing birthEvidence. head upon the bolster, and was pulling the bed clothes over her JANE PERRY. person; he then found the dead body of the child under the bolster, with her head partly over it; he asked her where the child had been before, but could get no answer. The question I desire to be answered by the court is, whether, assuming that the prisoner placed the dead body of the child under the bolster with the intention of endeavouring, as far as she could, to conceal the body from the surgeon, it was such a disposing of the dead body as to be an offence within the 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 14? It may be assumed that she intended to remove the body to some other place when an opportunity offered. If the court thinks it was not an offence, they will please order the prisoner to be discharged, as I respited her sentence until the opinion of the court was obtained. This case was not argued by counsel, but the judges retired to consider the case, and upon their return delivered the following JUDGMENT. PARKE, B.-Upon this case the Lord Chief Baron differs from the other members of the court. He thinks that there was not such a disposition of the dead body of the child as is within the statute; but we are all of a different opinion. It has already been solemnly decided, and that decision has been since acted upon in two or three cases, that the statute by the terms "secret burying or otherwise disposing of the dead body," does not require that the secret disposal of the dead body should be in some place of final deposit. In this case it is clear that the body was not put in a final place of deposit, and that there was no secret burying of the body; and the only question is, whether there was not a secret disposing of it within the statute. In R. v. Goldthorpe (2 Moo. C. C. 244; Car. & M. 335) it was held, that placing the body between a bed and a mattress was a disposing of it within the statute, and we can see no substantial difference between that case and the present, if the object of the prisoner was to conceal the dead body, and prevent inquiry into the birth. Here it is found that she placed the dead body of the child under the bolster, with the intention of endeavouring, as far as she could, to conceal it from the surgeon, and we think that enough. WIGHTMAN, J.-I am of the same opinion. According to the decision in R. v. Goldthorpe, a mere temporary disposing of the body with a view to conceal the birth is sufficient: and upon the facts stated here, making the assumption which the case requires, it is impossible to doubt, that the prisoner disposed of the body, as far as she could at the moment, for the purpose of concealing the fact of the birth from the surgeon. CROMPTON, J., concurred. CROWDER, J.-The case of R. v. Goldthorpe, is a solemn decision upon the point as to a temporary disposal of the body, and there are two other cases to the same effect, one before REG. v. Patteson, J., R. v. Farnham (1 Cox C. C. 349), (a) and the other before Lord Campbell, C. J., R. v. Hughes (4 Cox C. C. 447.) (b) JANE PERRY. I think, therefore, it is now too late to contend that the words of the statute should be construed as requiring some final disposing of the body. Conviction affirmed. 1855. Concealing birthEvidence. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. April 28, 1855. (Before POLLOCK, C.B., PARKE, B., COLERIDGE, CROMPTON and CROWDER, JJ.) REG. v. JAMES M'KAY KEITH. (c) Engraving part of Scotch bank note without authority-Meaning of Held that this was enough to satisfy the words of the statute, the jury HE following case was reserved by COLERIDGE, J.: The prisoner was tried before me at the last Warwick Assizes on an indictment framed upon the 11 Geo. 4 and 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 18. Upon the facts submitted to the jury he was, subject (a) In that case Patteson, J., said :-"I have spoken to Mr. Baron Parke, and he informs me that all the cases on this subject were considered in R. v. Goldthorpe, and that the judges then present by their decision of that case meant expressly to overrule them, and to hold that any concealment of the body, whether intended to be final or temporary, was within the spirit of the act. I must say that I entirely assent to that position, for it is the common sense view of the matter." (b) R. v. Hughes, Lord Campbell said :-"There cannot be any reasonable doubt that the prisoner visited the outhouse after the child was dead, and although she did not remove it, any replacing of the clothes or other things by which the body was concealed from view, would, I think, be an endeavour to conceal by a secret disposal of the dead body within the statute" (c) Reported by A. BITTLESTON, Esq., Barrister-at-law. REG. v. KEITH. 1855. to the following question, rightly convicted. I passed sentence on him, but having doubts whether on one point the charge could be sustained, I reserved that question for the opinion of the judges. Engraving part The prisoner being possessed of a one pound note of the of bank note- British Linen Banking Company had cut out the centre part, on Evidence which the whole of the promissory note was written, and taken "Purporting." the ornamental border to Kynaston, a printer at Birmingham, representing that he wanted to have a plate made of this border, intending to fill up the centre with the title of some oil or cosmetic, of which the firm in whose employ he represented himself to be were the vendors. Kynaston was not an engraver, and told him that he (Kynaston) must employ another hand to execute the Royal Arms of Scotland and the Britannia, which formed part of this border, to which the prisoner assented. Accordingly, an engraver of the name of Umfreville was applied to, who perceived at once the prisoner's real purpose, and having caused through the police a communication to be made to the Banking Company, undertook the work with their authority and made a plate, an impression from which I annex to this case, which was delivered to the prisoner, and he was apprehended with it in his possession. The words of the section are as follows:-" If any person shall engrave, or in anywise make upon any plate whatever, any bill of exchange or promissory note for the payment of money, or any part of any bill of exchange or promissory note for the payment of money, purporting to be the bill or note or part of the bill or note of any person or persons, body corporate, or company carrying on the business of bankers (other than and except the Bank of England), without the authority of such person or persons, or body corporate or company," &c. I doubted whether a plate having on it merely the Royal Arms of Scotland and the Britannia, although placed as they are found in a complete promissory note of the Banking Company, satisfied these words, and request the opinion of the judges thereon. No counsel appeared for the prisoner. Bittleston for the prosecution.-This conviction is right. The only doubt entertained by the learned judge at the trial was whether the averment that the part of the note which the prisoner had engraved purported to be part of a note of the British Linen Company was proved; and it is submitted that the evidence on that subject was sufficient to support the finding of the jury. In order to constitute an offence under the section in question, it is not necessary that the part engraved by the prisoner should be so much of the note as will show upon the face of it that it is part of the note of the particular Banking Company. If that were so, nearly the whole of the note must be engraved before the offence would be complete. It is enough if it is a part so engraved as to be capable of completion, and such that if completed, the whole would purport REG. v. KEITH. 1855. Evidence"Purporting." to be a note of the company to any person acquainted with their notes, or having the opportunity of comparison. The matter was very much discussed in Reg. v. Faderman, 4 Cox C. C. 359. There the indictment was framed upon section 19 of the same statute, 1 Will. 4, c. 66, and it charged the engraving of "several Engraving part parts of an undertaking for payment of money purporting respec- of bank notetively to be parts of one of the foreign undertakings for payment of money" of the Empire of Russia; and fac similes of these several parts were engraved upon the indictment; one of them consisted of a scroll and wreath, with words within the border; and the indictment was demurred to for this (amongst other reasons), that the undertaking itself, of which the matters engraved were alleged to be part, was not set out, nor any translation of it, so that the court might be enabled to see on the face of the record whether the parts set out did purport to be parts of the genuine instrument. That demurrer was argued before Alderson, B., Cresswell, J., and Williams, J., and they overruled the demurrer. In delivering judgment, ALDERSON, B., said: "It will be in the first place desirable to ascertain what is the meaning of the words 'purporting to be a bill or part of a bill?' and it appears to us that we must construe it in this way: If it be a complete bill or note, then it must appear on the face of it to be what it is alleged it purports to be; but that word, when it is used with reference to part of a bill or note, cannot be construed in the same manner, for part of a bill cannot purport to be anything; when applied to a part, it must mean that it is part of a bill or note, which, if complete, would purport to be what is described in the act. This is the only reasonable construction that can be put upon the statute. When a prisoner is charged with forging part of an instrument, we must be satisfied not from merely looking at the indictment, but by proper averments and by extrinsic proof, that the instrument, when complete, would be what it is stated to be." And in the course of the argument ALDERSON, B., put this very case: "How under any circumstances could we tell without extrinsic evidence, whether it is part of a foreign note or not? The case of R. v. Goldstein (Russ. & Ry. 473), and the other cases cited, were those in which complete instruments were forged. Take the case of the forgery of the figure of Britannia on an engraved plate, how could it be made to appear on the face of the indictment without evidence that it was part of a genuine note? It must be proved by witnesses, and the jury must find it.” In the present case the manager of the bank produced a genuine note, and the jury compared that with the engraving, and found that it purported to be part. The prisoner's defence was that he had copied the designs from the note, but for an innocent purpose; which was, however, negatived by the jury. CROMPTON, J.-Can the figure of Britannia be said to be part of the note? Bittleston. It is part of the indicia of the note; one of the REG. v. KEITH. 1855. Engraving part of bank note 66 marks by which the note is known and obtains currency. If these could be engraved with impunity, one of the greatest difficulties in the way of making forged notes would be removed. JUDGMENT. POLLOCK, C. B.-We are all of opinion that this conviction is Evidence quite right. (His Lordship read the words of the section.) Now, Purporting." picking out the words applicable to this case, they run thus-that, if any person shall engrave, or in anywise make upon any plate whatever any part of any bill of exchange or promissory note for the payment of money purporting to be part of the bill or note of any company carrying on the business of bankers, &c., he shall be guilty of the offence. Now the prisoner in this case had procured to be engraved upon a plate only the arms of Scotland, which appear at the head of a genuine promissory note of the British Linen Banking Company, and the figure of Britannia, which is in the margin on the left hand side of the company's genuine note; and the question is, whether he is guilty of the offence described in this statute. I am of opinion that he is. It has been suggested that these pictures do not form any part of the note; and if the word "note" is to be taken as applying only to that which gives the legal obligation to the instrument, they certainly are not part of the note, because they are not part of the formal words expressing the obligation. But I think the statute uses the word "note" in its popular sense, meaning the thing as it is in fact; and, as I threw out in the course of the argument, it seems to me that if it were made an offence to deface or tear a promissory note of a banking company, that offence would be committed by tearing or defacing any part of the piece of paper on which the note is printed I should say even the blank part-not even containing any of the ornaments or indicia whereby the note is ordinarily known. Then the next question is, does it purport to be part? If the engraving had been put upon an invoice or the back of a card, and so engraved that it could never be used as part of a note, it would not purport to be so; but, if that is not the case, then it must be ascertained by comparison with the genuine note; and upon the comparison it would be a question for the jury, whether it did purport to be part; and in this case the jury must be considered to have found that; and I think they have rightly so found. In another part of the same section, there is a provision against any imitation of the subscription to the note; the words are "resembling, or apparently intended to resemble," as to which it is clear that the apparent or intended resemblance can only be ascertained by comparison; and if it may be done for the one purpose, there is no reason why it should not be done for the other. Does this engraving then purport to be part of a note of the British Linen Company? Giving to the term "note" its proper signification, I think clearly it does. Having reference to the position in which the arms of Scotland and the Britannia are engraved upon the plate, no person looking at that plate and comparing it with a |