R v George Turpin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1850 |
| Date | 01 January 1850 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 344
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
regina v george turpin (The practice was, for a ma]ority of the officers of a palish to draw cheques on the treasurer of a union , and one of their blank cheques, filled up for 11. 3s 6d. had a note at the bottom-" Unless this cheque is signed by a majority of the parish officers, it will not be cashed." This cheque was signed by one of the officers while it was for 11 3s 6d It was altered to 31 3s 6d , and when cashed by the treasurer, had the signatures of a majority of the officers to it ò-Held, that if (a) See the case of Rex v. Douglas, 70 & P. 644 (b) As to the examination of a prisoner's witnesses, when the case is before the examining magistrate, see Lord Denman's charge at the Taunton Spring Assizes, 1849, post 2 CAR. & K.[821. REGINA V. BASS 345 the cheque was fraudulently altered when it had only one signature to it, this was no forgery, as it was then an incomplete instrument) Forgery -The prisoner was indicted for forging, and also for uttering, offering, disposing of, and putting off a forged order for the payment of money, to wit, for the payment of the sum of 31. 3s 6d , with intent to defraud John Deacon In other counts of the indictment the intent was laid to defraud other persons, and in some of the counts the forged instrument was described as a warrant for the payment of money. It was proved by Mr. John William Caley, that he was one of the overseers of the poor of New Windsor, and that the prisoner had been the assistant overseer, there being in that parish three churchwardens and four overseers ; and that the practice was for a majority of the parish officers to draw cheques on the treasurer of the union, which he paid ; and that, on the 26th of February, 1849, the prisoner had brought him a cheque (which was the cheque in question), drawn in favour of John Seeker, Esq., for 1L 3s. 6 £. This cheque was then signed by Mr Caley, but had not been signed by any other person. It was proved by Mr. Smyth, [821] the managing clerk of Mr. Seeker, that on the 26th of February, 1849, the prisoner paid him 11. 3s 6d in cash, which was the amount then due to Mr Seeker from the parish officers of New Windsor , and it was further proved, that when the cheque was cashed at the counting-house of the treasurer, it was for 31 3s 6d There was no evidence to shew who presented the cheque to be cashed, but at the time it was cashed it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sookraj v Ceres
-
THE QUEEN v JOHN VANDERSTEIN and Others
...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. C. 363. 574 COMMON LAW REPORTS. T. V. ......