R v John Beard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 434
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Referred to, Chapman v. Milvarn, 1850, 5 Ex. 61; R. v. Pritchard, 1861, Le. & Ca. 34.
regin~a v john beard. (If a party had reasonable ground for believing, from the acts of another party, that he had authority to accept bills in the name of such party, and, acting upon that impression, was to accept a bill in that party's name, this would not be forgery ; and the fact, that, on three or four previous occasions, when he had dra,wn bills in that way, the party whose name was used had paid, even without remark or remonstrance, would afford fair ground for the belief that he had such authority. If a person, wishing to raise money, put the name of another on a bill, without his authority, intending to pay the bill when due, and believing that he should be able to do so, this is forgery So, if a person, relying on the kindness of another (a near relation, for instance), uses his name on a bill without authority, trusting that that person will pay it, rather than there should be a criminal prosecution on the subject, tins also is forgery The return made to the stamp office under the stat. 7 Gee IV. c 4(i, is not the only mode of proving that a person is a public officer of a joint stock bank. An indictment for a forgery, with intent to defraud a joint stock bank, may Lay the intent to be to defraud " A. B. [one of the shareholders] and others," and they are not bound to prosecute in the name of their public ofihcer It is not at all essential that the shareholders m a joint stock bank should all reside in England , and, sembte, that it is not essential that any six of them should In an indictment for a forgery, laid with intent to defraud a public officer of a joint stock bank, (a) As to the practice in civil cases, see the eases of Smart v Raynet, ante, vol vi. p. 721, and Stevens v. Webb, ante, vol. vn. p 60 , and Buncombe v Daniell, post SCAR. & P. 144 BEGIN A V. BEARD 435 it is not necessary to aver that he was " nominated " under the stat. 7 Geo. IV. c. 46.) [Referred to, Chapman v. Milvaiu, 1850, 5 Ex. 61; R. v. Pntchard, 1861, Le. & Ca. 34.] Forgery The first couut of the indictment charged that the prisoner did forge a certain bill of exchange [setting it out with the acceptance across it], upon which bill was an indorsement as follows, " Beard and Herbert, with intent to defraud Wdham Washbourn and others." [144] Second, for offering, uttering, disposing of, and putting off the forged bill [set out as before], upon which bill was an endorsement as follows, " Beard and Herbert, knowing the bill to be forged/-' with like intent. Third count, that the prisoner, having in his possession a certain other bill of exchange, for the payment of two hundred pounds, did forge on the same an acceptance, which said forged acceptance is as follows : " Accepted, payable at Spooner, Attwood, & Co., Bankers, London-John Woodman," with the like intent. Fourth count, that the prisoner had in his possession a certain other bill of exchange, lor £200 [not setting it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v William Camplin
...case of Regina v. Vivian, ante, p. 719. (f) See the cases of Rex v. Burgiss, T C. & P. 490 ; Rex v. James, id. 533 , and Regina v. Beard, 8 C. & P. 143. .7f?. BEGtNA V. CAMPLDf 1017 It was proved that the prosecutrix was a girl thirteen years old ; that the prisoner mad her qaite drunk ; an......
-
R v Maybury
...in April, 1864) Garth said he assented to the application, but 7 C & P. 553) ; and mere intention to pay does not negative it (K c Beaid, 8 C & P 143 , R t. Cook, 8 C & P. 582 , R v Hill, ibid 274) (a) Sentence, four years' penal servitude. N. P. vii.-16 ' REOTNA 7'. FRANKLIN 4 F. & F. 93 M......
-
R v Owen Pritchard
...consider, the words are " it shall be lawful and sufficient." Williams .T.-Has not the point been decided against you in Regina v. Beard (8 Car & P. 143) ? Mclntyre. No. In Chapman v Milvain (5 Exch 6L), Parke B remarks that in Regttui v. Beaid the point was only mentioned, not argued The c......
- Chapman and Another v Milvain