R v Hannon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 January 1839 |
| Date | 02 January 1839 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 718
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 2 Mood. C. C 77.
central criahnal court. January Session, 183'J, before Mr. Justice Bosaiiquet, Mr Justice Patteson. and Mr. Baron Gurney. January 2nd, 1839. eeoina v hannon. (The 18tii section of the stat. 11 Geo IV. £ 1 Will IV. c. 06, applies to plates of promissory notes of persons carrying on the business of bankers in the province of Upper Canada.) [Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 2 Mood. C. C 77.J The first count of the indictment stated, that the prisoner, on the 14th September, in the 2nd year &c , at &c , feloniously, knowingly, and without lawful excuse, had in his custody and possession a certain copper plate, upon which was engraved a part of a certain promissory note for the payment of money, purporting to be a part of a promissory note of a certain company of persons carrying on the business of bankers in a certain country under the [12J dominion of Her Majesty ; that is to say, in the province of Upper Canada, in North America, under the name and style of the President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of Upper Canada, the said company of persons being other than the Bank of England, which said part of a promissory note is as follows .- TEN TEN 10 X N X C Ten Chartered by an Act of Parliament. The President, Directors, £ Co. of the Bank of Upper Canada promise to pay ten dollars on demand to the bearer for value received.-Toronto 18 Cashier President X TEN TEN against the statute, and against the peace, &c. 9 CAR. &P. 13. BEGINA V. HANNON 719 The second and third counts were in the same terms, except that, in the former, the instrument was described as a promissory note for the payment of money " of a certain body corporate " , and in the latter, as a promissory note for the payment oi money " of William Proudfoot, and others." From the evidence, it appeared that the prisoner, within the jurisdiction of the Court, procured & copper plate to be engraved with the words and figures set out in the indictment, which are part of the form of the promissory notes used and circulated by the Bank of Upper Canada ; that the plate so engraved was received by the prisoner, and taken into his possession under circumstances pregnant with suspicion ; that it was obtained by him for a fraudulent purpose ; that W. Proudfoot was the president, and J G. Ridout the cashier of the Upper Canada Bank, the notes of which are usually signed by those persons ; and that the prisoner had endeavoured to obtain from another engraver a fac-simile of their signatures, which he had cut [13] off from the Toronto note produced by him to the first engraver. Prendergast, for the prisoner, contended, that the offence committed by the prisoner was not within the true intent and meaning of the 18th section of the 1 Will IV. c 66, upon which Act only, he submitted, could the indictment, if .sustainable at all, be supported He argued, that that section does not extend to the notes of companies carrying on business within Her Majesty's dominions out of England, although the act done by the party indicted was clearly done within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court. For the purpose of shewing that it could not be construed to extend to all notes wherever issued, he referred to section 19 of the same statute, which makes express provision respecting the possession of plates engraved with notes, or parts of notes, of persons resident in places not within her Majesty's dominions. He also adverted to section 3 and ses&ion 30 for the purpose of shewing that the general words of the former were deemed by the legislature insufficient to provide for the forging and uttering in England of notes made oc purporting to be made out of England, since it was found necessary to introduce an express provision for that purpose in the latter. Bosanquet, J., who tried the case, left the questions of fact to the jury, who found the prisoner Guilty. His Lordship, with the assent of Patteson, J , and Gurney, B , who were present, respited the judgment, in order to take the opinion of all the Judges upon the objection raised Bodkin and Doane...
To continue reading
Request your trial