R v Edward Hawkes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 24
LINCOLN's INN
Distinguished, R v. Curry, 1841, post, p 218. Referred to, R v Snelling, 1853, Dears C C 219 Questioned, Peto v. Reynolds, 1854, 9 Ex 410
1838 regina v. edward hawkes. (An indictment for uttering a forged bill of exchange is supported by proof of uttering an instiument in form of a bill with a forged acceptance on it, though there be no person named as drawee in the bill ) [Distinguished, R v. Cutry, 1841, post, p 218. Referred to, R v Knelling, 1853, Dears C C 219 Questioned, Peto v. Reynolds, 1854, 9 Ex 410 ] The prisoner was convicted before Mr. Justice Bosanquet, at the Summer Assizes 1838 at Warwick, of uttering a forged acceptance upon a bill of exchange knowing it to be forged [61] The indictment charged that the prisoner having in his possession a bill of exchange as follows - 2 MOOft 82, REGINA V. JOHN REED 25 " Birmingham, 9th August, 1837. " £20. Two months after date, pay to my order the sum of twenty pounds for value received. " edward hawkes, " General Provision Warehouse, Baker, &c , Unett Street, Well Street, Hockley " On which was written a forged acceptance as follows - " Accepted. Payable at Messrs Gillett and Tawney, Bankers, Banbury " wllleam sellers." Did utter the same knowing the said acceptance to be forged, with intent to defraud John Evans. And in another count with intent to defraud William Sellers. The prisoner brought the instrument described in the indictment with the acceptance upon it to the house of John Evans, and uttered it to his servant in payment of a debt, the servant seeing that it was not addressed to any one asked who the acceptor was The prisoner said it was his brother-in-law, named Sellers, a pa.per-maker near Banbury. The servant observed that it was not indorsed, and desired the prisoner to indorse it, which he did. The prisoner carried on business as a baker in Unett Street, but had removed from thence when the bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mason v Lack
-
Peto v Reynolds
... ... I am not desirous of disparaging the conclusion at which the majority of the Judges arrived in the case of Regina v. Hawkes, it is true, without publicly hearing an argument, and without publicly announcing the grounds of their decision, but nevertheless sitting in ... ...
-
The Queen v Blenkinsop
...the bill, the bill being a complete bUl already, and therefore unaffected by the addition of the direction of the drawee. Q. v. Hawkes, 2 Mood. C. C. 60, shews that a biH of exchange is a complete instrument, when an acceptance is upon it, though it is not addressed to any drawee. That case......