26
should certainly admit it if this was the case of a private bank.
Mr. Jervis said, it has been admitted in this very court, in such a case.
Mr. Taunton said, the bare possession of forged notes was a separate offence, and he believed there were indictments against the prisoner for that very offence; the uttering of other notes was not a necessary medium of proof of the forging of them: suppose this was a prosecution for forging a bond, could it be given in evidence that the prisoner had forged other bonds; and where was the difference between the forgery of a bond and the forgery of a note.
His Lordship said, the counsel for the prisoner had taken this objection, without taking along with them the ground on which that evidence had been admitted; it was certainly on a general ground not admissible evidence, that one note should be proved to be forged to shew that another was so, but here the notes being found in the house of the prisoner, his working at them, and the various circumstances proved this, were applicable to shew that the prisoner had been guilty of forgery; and it was necessary to prove that the prisoner had directed these notes to be conveyed away and hid, and for the officer to prove that they were found so hid, in order to show the prisoner's knowledge of what those notes were, and his acting in the manufactory of them, so as to demonstrate that he was, though not the sole person who forged them, assisting and taking part in the forgery.
Mr. Clifford said, he had two objections to this indictment; the first was, that as this was an indictment under particular Act of Parliament, the words of that statute must be attended to in the indictment; the first clause of this Act (45th George III, c. 89) makes it felony falsely to forge, make, alter, &c, and goes on, or for causing, aiding, assisting, &c, in forging, &c, and in that clause there is no mention made of the Bank of England. The second clause related to the Bank of England, but that clause was confined to the forging, making, &c, and did not extend to the causing, aiding, &c, and therefore, unless it had been proved that the prisoner did actually forge the note in question, his aiding and assisting, or even causing that note to be forged, was no offence under that clause.—His second
