James Kirkwood's Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Date | 01 January 1831 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 976
Crown Cases
S. C post, p. 142.
Lancaster Sp Assizes, 1830. jambs kirkwood's case. (Forged notes of another bank may be given in evidence to shew guilty knowledge, though the subject of another indictment against the same party ) [S. C post, p. 142.] Prisoner was indicted for uttering a forged £5 note of the Bank of Ireland To shew guilty knowledge, it was proposed to give in evidence the uttering by the prisoner of two iorged notes of the bank of Messrs. Ball, Plunket & Co., bankers in Dublin. [104] Cottingham, for the prisoner, made the following objections :- 1. That tlese notes being the subject-matter of another indictment, they were inadmissible as evidence on this. 2. That being notes of a different description, they could not be given in evidence to shew guilty knowledge of the forged character of the note set forth in the indictment. Littledale, J., without hesitation overruled the objections, and admitted the evidence. The prisoner was convicted.
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 991
Crown Cases
S. C. ante, p. 103
Lancaster Sp. Assizes, 1831 james kibkwood's case (The uttering an Irish promissory note in England is an offence indictable in England ) [S. C. ante, p. 103 ] Prisoner was indicted for uttering a forged Bank of Ireland note. It was objected by Cottiflgham, for the prisoner, that the 45 Geo III c 89, which made tie uttering of promissory notes for the.payment of money felony, did not extend beyond England and Scotland, the words of the statute being- " Whereas it ib expedient that such provisions should extend and be m force id every part of great Britain," omitting all mention of Ireland ; and inasmuch as the note in question purported to be drawn in Dublin, and was made payable there it was not an offence to utter the same in England. He cited Dick's case, 1 Leach, 68, wMch was an indictment on 2 Geo. II. c. 25, the original forgery Act, for uttering a Scotch note at Carlisle * Courtemay, in reply, contended that the 45 [143] Geo. Ill c. 89, was a general Act, and he cited the authority of Lord Mansfield (Burrow's Rep.), for the position that a general Aetx which did not, either in terms or by implication, exclude either Scotland or Ireland-included both ; and he referred to 7 & 8 Geo IV c. 30, s 42 (the Malicious. Trespass Act), which contains a clause expressly excluding those parts of the United Kingdom from its...
To continue reading
Request your trial