R v Charles Hendry Ravenscroft
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1809 |
Date | 01 January 1809 |
Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 738
LINCOLN'S INN
Reffered to, R. v. Newton, 1838, 2 Mood. C. C 59; R. v. Snellinq, 1853, Dears. C. C 219.
1809. rex v. charles henry ravenscroft. (The prisoner drew a bill, " Please to pay the bearer on demand £15," and signed it with his own name, but it was not addressed to any one : there were forged upon this instrument, when uttered, the words and signature, " Payable at Messrs. Masterman & Co , White Hart Court, Wm. M'lnerheney " M'Inerheney kept cash at Masterman & Co.'s, who were bankers The judges held this was not an order for payment of money, there being no special averments in the indictment that this was intended for an order, or that Masterman & Co. were bankeis ) [Referred to, R. v. Newton, 1838, 2 Mood. C. C 59 ; R. v Snellmq, 1853, Dears. C. C. 219.] The prisoner was tried before Mr Justice Le Blanc, at the Old Bailey sessions, June, 1809, on an indictment charging him in one count with forging, and in another count with uttering, knowing it to be forged, a certain order for payment of money, as follows, viz. " Gent* " London, April 24, 1809. " Please to pay the bearer on demand fifteen pounds and accompt it to " Your humble servant, " charles H ravenscroft. " Payable at Messrs. Masterman & Co. " White Hart Court, " wm. m'inerheney." with intent to defraud Richard Wilson There were other counts stating the intent to be to defraud Francis Wilson and William M'Inerheney ; and other counts stating the intent to be to defraud the partners in Masterman's banking house. There was another set of counts calling it a bill of exchange instead of an order for payment of money. The evidence was very clear and satisfactory of the prisoner having uttered this instrument knowing it to be forged. The jury found the prisoner guilty on the count charging him with uttering it knowing it to be forged. - [162] A doubt occurred whether this instrument or so much of it as was a forgery fell within the description of an order for payment oi money or of a bill of exchange ; and supposing it to be properly described as one or the other, whether, inasmuch as, there was no stamp, the want of addition of place to that part where it is made Rusa.**Y. ifli bex v. robekt hench 739 payaSle at Masterman's and Co. rendered the instrument invalid, and was an objection which the prisoner might take advantage of on this indictment. Upon these objections the case was submitted to the consideration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R v Edward Hawkes
...prisoner to accept the bill. The case of Gray v. Mtlner, 8 Taunt 739, was cited See also Edis v Bury, 6 B & C 433 , The King v Ravenwoft, Russ & Ry 161 ; The King v Hunter, Russ & Ry 511 The learned Judge thought that the writing upon [62] the instrument purported to be an acceptance by Sel......
-
THE QUEEN v JOHN VANDERSTEIN and Others
...RushworthENR R. & R. 317. Rex v. Thorn 2 Moo. C. C. 210. Rex v. Owen 1 M. C. C. 96. Ferguson's case 2 Moo. 233. Rex. v. RavenscroftENR Russ. & Ry. 161. Rex. v. TurpinENR 2 Car. & Kir. 820. Regina v. ThornENR 2 Mood. C. C. 210. Regina v. RobertsENR 2 Mood. C. C. 258. Rex v. Ellor 1 Leach. C.......
-
R v John Thorn
...213. The learned Judge reserved the point for the consideration of the Judges. The jury convicted the prisoner. Vide RcwenscrofCs case, Russ. & R. 161. R. v. Raake, 2 Moody, C C. 66, & C. & P. 627. This case was argued at the same meeting of the Judges as the last case in Easter term 1841. ......
-
R v William Newton
...a forged request for the delivery of goods under the statute 11 Geo IV and 1 Wm IV c 66, s 10 See East's P. C 936, Ravenscroft's case, Russ & Ry 161 ; Carney'1 a case, Moody, 351 This case was considered at a meeting of the Judges in Michaelmas term 1838, and they held the conviction wrong,......