R v Edward Autey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 1013
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE COURTS OF ERROR
S. C. 26 L. J M. C. 190; 29 L T. O S. 267; 21 J. P 454; 3 Jur. N. S. 697; 7 Cox C. C. 329, sub nomine R. v. Antey, 5 W. R 737.
[294] 1857. regina v. edward autey. (The prisoner was convicted upon an indictment which charged him in one count with uttering a warrant, and in another with uttering an order, for the payment of money. A dividend warrant of a railway company, signed by the secretary and addressed to a banker, required the latter to pay the amount named in the warrant to a certain shareholder or order, and to charge the same to the company's revenue account. It was stated on the warrant that the shareholder's name must be indorsed at the back, and it was proved that the banker would not pay the money even to the shareholder himself without such indorsement. The pusoner uttered this dividend warrant knowing that the indorsement of the shareholder's name thereon was a forgery. Held, that the forgery of the signature of the shareholder was a forgery of the entire document ; that such document was properly described as a warrant or order for the payment of money, and that the conviction was right.) [S. C. 26 L. J M. 0. 190 ; 29 L T. 0 S. 267 ; 21 J. P 454-; 3 Jur. N. S. 697 ; 7 Cox C. C. 329 , sub nomine R. v. Antey, 5 W. R 737.] The following case was reserved and stated for the consideration and decision of the Couit of Criminal Appeal by Crompton J The prisoner Edward Autey was tried and convicted before me at the fast Assizes for the county of York, upon an indictment charging him in one count with uttering a warrant for the payment of money, and m another count with uttering an order for the payment of money. The prisoner was in the employment of the Leeds, Bradford and Halifax Junction Railway Company, and it was the duty of him and a fellow clerk to fill up the dividend warrants payable to the proprietors, and to place the stamps on them, and put the initials of the company on the stamp, and then to take them to the secretary of the company to sign, and afterwards to post them. The instrument in question was regularly, and in the course of their duty, made out by the prisoner and his fellow clerk, and was properly stamped and initialed by them, and was afterwards duly signed by the secretary The indorsement of Thomas Thompson Cunliffe Lister, the proprietor in whose favour the document was drawn, was forged after the document had been signed 1295} by the secretary, and the prisoner uttered the document with the forged indorsement knowing it to be forged. 1014 REGINA V. ED WARD ATJTEY DEARS. & HELL 296. The following is a copy of the instrument and indorsement, " Leeds, Bradford and Halifax Junction Railway Company's Offices, Great Northern Station, Bradford, 9th June, 1856. NO. 338. £13, 11s. 7d. on demand " The Leeds Banking Company, Leeds. o L. B. & H. Pay to Thomas Thompson Cunliffe Lister or order thirteen pounds eleven shillings and seven pence which charge to the Company's Revenue Account. * '^ martin cawood, Secretary ft one penny, " The shareholder's name must be indorsed at the back of the check " (Indorsement) " T T. cunliffe lister." It was proved at the trial that the bankers would not have paid the money mentioned in the order, even to the proprietor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Armstead
...R. and ARMSTEAD D.A. Scharschmidt for the Crown; The applicant appeared in person. Cases cited: (1) R. v. AuteyENR(1857), D. & B. 294; 169 E.R. 1013; 7 Cox, C.C. 329, distinguished. (2) R. v. James(1849), 4 Cox, C.C. 90. Legislation construed: Forgery Law (Laws of the Cayman Islands, 1963, ......