1. That a ship was stranded or cast on shore, as stated in the indictment. 2. That a man endeavoured to save his life from the ship, after it was stranded, &c. 3. The acts of the prisoner, by which he "by force" impeded or prevented the man, in his endeavour to save his life. 10. Letter, threatening to Burn or Destroy Property, or to Kill or Murder. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord —, knowingly and feloniously did send ["send or deliver, or utter"] to C. D., a certain letter, ["letter or writing"] directed to the said C. D., by the name and description of Mr. C. D., threatening to burn his house, and his stacks of grain, hay, and straw ["threatening to kill or murder any other person, or to burn or destroy any house, barn, or other building, or any rick or stack of grain, hay, or straw, or other agricultural produce"]; and which said letter is as follows, that is to say,-[here set out the letter verbatim]; against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. [As to the venue, see ante, p. 74. Felony; transportation for life, or for not less than seven years;-or imprisonment [with or without hard labour] for not more than four years, and if a male, to be once, twice, or thrice publicly or privately whipped, if the court think fit. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 66, s. 1. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove→ 1. The sending of the letter, as ante, p. 324. 2. The letter being produced and proved, must be read; and the prosecutor or other witness must give such explana tion, if necessary and practicable, as to render any doubtful passage in it intelligible. SECTION VI. Forgery. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day ofin the year of our Lord- feloniously did forge a certain [bill of exchange], with intent thereby then to defraud: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. (Second count for uttering.) And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said A. B., on theday of in the year aforesaid, feloniously did offer and utter ["offer, utter, dispose of, or put off"] a certain forged [bill of exchange], with intent thereby then to defraud, he the said A. B., at the time he so offered and uttered the said lastmentioned forged [bill of exchange], then well knowing the the same to be forged: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady 'the Queen, her crown and dignity. The indictment.] The form of an indictment for forgery, is now very much simplified by the recent statute, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100. By sect. 5, in any indictment for forging or uttering any instrument, "it shall be sufficient to describe such instrument by any name or designation by which the sume may be usually known, or by the purport thereof, without setting out any copy or fac-simile thereof or otherwise describing the same, or the value thereof." So that the forged instrument may now be described simply by the name by which it is usually known,—as, a certain bill of exchange, promissory note, bank of England note, will, deed, bond, cheque, &c., without further description; for instance, in the case of a bill of exchange, it is not necessary to state by whom or on whom it purports to be drawn, or by whom accepted, or the date or amount, or at what time after date or sight it is drawn,‚—or to give any other description than to call it simply "a certain bill of exchange." And by sect. 8, it shall be sufficient in any indictment for forging, uttering, offering, disposing of, or putting off any instrument whatsoever, "to allege that the defendant did the act with intent to defraud, without alleging the intent of the defendant to be to defraud any particular person ;” and upon the trial, “it shall not be necessary to prove an intent on the part of the defendant to defraud any particular person, but it shall be sufficient to prove that the de fendant did the act charged with an intent to defraud." The venue may be laid in any county or place in which the defendant shall be apprehended or be in custody. Ante, p. 71. If the forgery consist of an alteration merely, it is deemed in law a forgery of the whole instrument, and will support an indictment for that offence; the point has been ruled upon an indictment on a statute, containing, as the present statute as to forgery does, the word "alter" as well as "forge." R. v. Teague, R. & Ry. 33. R. v. Treble, R. & Ry. 164. Or the indictment may be special, for the alteration, stating that the prisoner did "feloniously alter" the instrument, stating how, and in what particulars. See R. v. Dyson Post, R. & Ry. 101. But where the acceptance alone of a bill of exchange is forged, it cannot be deemed or treated as a forgery of the whole bill. And therefore, where an indictment contained two counts for uttering, one in the usual form for uttering a forged bill of exchange, the other stating that the prisoner, having in his custody and possession a certain bill of exchange (setting it out) with a certain forged acceptance thereon (setting it also out) “feloniously did offer, utter, dispose of, and put off (then and there knowing the said acceptance to be forged) the said bill of exchange:" the evidence proved the acceptance alone to be forged; and it was objected that this did not sustain the first count, for as the statute mentions both the bill and the acceptance, the forgery of the bill could not be deemed to include that of the acceptance; and as to the second count it was bad, as not containing any express averment that the prisoner uttered the forged acceptance, but merely the bill: the prisoner was found guilty; but these objections being reserved for the opinion of the judges, they held the conviction to be wrong. R. v. Horwell, 6 Car. & P. 148, Ry. & M. 405. And the same as to a forged indorsement. The above form of indictment will be found to answer in all cases of forgery or uttering of a forged instrument, by merely inserting the usual name of the instrument in each count. Punishment.] Forging, altering, or uttering an exchequer bill or exchequer debenture, or any indorsement on or assignment thereof,- —or an East India bond, or any indorsement or assignment thereof,- —or a note or bill of the bank of England, called a bank-note or bank bill of exchange, or bank-post bill, or any indorsement or assigment thereof,—or a will, testament, or codicil, or testamentary writing,—a bill of exchange or promissory note, or any indorsement thereon, or any acceptance of a bill of exchange,—an undertaking for the payment of money,—or a warrant or order for the payment of money: Felony; 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 3; transportation for life, or for not less than seven years, or imprison – ment [with or without hard labour, and solitary for not more than a month at a time, or three months in a year, s. 3] for not more than four, or less than two years. 1 Vict. c. 84, s. 2. Forging, altering, or uttering a deed,-a bond, a court roll, or copy thereof,-a receipt or acquittance for money or goods, an accountable receipt for money or goods or for any note, bill, or other security for money,—or a warrant, order, or request for the delivery or transfer of goods, or for the delivery of any note, bill, or other security for money:— felony, the like punishment. 1 W. 4, c. 66, ss. 10, 26. Accessories before the fact, the same punishment ;—accessories after the fact, imprisonment, &c., for not more than two years. 1 W. 4, c. 66, s. 25. Forging, altering, or uttering instruments made or purporting to be made out of England,—the same punishment as if the instrument were made or purported to be made in England. Id. s. 30. The punishment in other cases of forgery, shall be mentioned hereafter. Evidence. To maintain the first count of this indictment 1. The instrument must be produced, if forthcoming; and the prosecutor must prove 2. That it is forged. 3. That it was forged by the defendant. 4. The intent to defraud. To maintain the second count of the indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. The uttering. 2. That the instrument is forged; and for this purpose it must be produced, if forthcoming. 3. That the defendant at the time he uttered or offered it, knew it to be forged. 4. The intent to defraud. Having thus stated shortly what is necessary to be proved, I shall now proceed to state the manner of proving it; which I propose to do, under the following heads: 1. the forging; 2. the uttering; 3. the instrument forged. 1. The Forging. Formerly if the instrument charged to be forged, purported to be that of a known existing party, he was not allowed to prove the forgery, but it must have been proved by persons conversant with his handwriting, and who could swear that to the best of their belief the part of the instrument purporting to be of his handwriting, was not so. But by stat. 9 G. 4, c. 32, s. 2, no person shall be an incompetent witness in support of a prosecution for forging or uttering a forged deed, writing, instrument, or other matter, by reason of any interest such person may have or be supposed to have in respect of such deed, writing, instrument, or other matter. And now, by stat 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85, s. 1, no person offered as a witness shall be excluded, by reason of incapacity from interest, from giving evidence, upon the trial of any issue or matter, civil or criminal. See ante, p. 151. If a man draw, accept, or indorse a bill of exchange, in the name of another, without his authority, it is forgery. But if he sign it with his own name, per procuration of the party whom he intends to represent, it is no forgery; it is no false making of the instrument, but merely a false assumption of authority. This has recently been decided by the criminal court of appeal, with respect to an indorsement on a bill of exchange; R. v. White, 2 Car. & K. 404, 1 Den. 208; and may be considered as applying to all instruments signed per procuration; previously to which, the point was much doubted. But if a man really have the authority of another to use his name, and do so, it is the same as if the other had written it, and is not a forgery; or even if it be done under circumstances that the writer may fairly and bonâ fide think that he has the authority of the other party (and which is a question for the jury), it is not a forgery. Per Coleridge, J. in R. v. Forbes, 7 Car. & P. 224. But if he did so without authority, even although intending to pay or take up the bill, &c., before or when it should become due, and expecting to be able to do so, it would be forgery. Id. So, if a man exceed an authority given to him, with intent to defraud,—as if a blank acceptance be given to a man, with authority to draw a bill for a certain amount, and he fraudulently draw it for a larger amount, it is a forgery. R. v. Minter Hart, 7 Car. & P. 652, Ry. & M. 486. So where the prosecutor gave a blank cheque upon his bankers, to his clerk, to draw a cheque for the amount of a bill and expenses which he had to provide for, and the clerk filled up the cheque for a much larger |