R v John McKay
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1804 |
| Date | 01 January 1804 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 689
LINCOLN'S INN
[71] 1804. rex v john M'KAY. (The prisoner was convicted for uttering a forged note of a Scotch corporation, caHed the British Linen Company ; Held that the uttering a forged note of a Scoteh corporation was not an offence within the meaning of the 2 Geo, II. c. 25. Qu. Whether such a company has any authority to issue bills ? See Rex v. Catapodi, supra, 65.) The prisoner was tned before Mr Justice Heath, at the September Old Bailey sessions, in the year 1803, on an indictment which, among other counts, had one for uttering a certain promissory note for the payment of 5, and on this count the prisoner was convicted. The note was as follows : - " Edinburgh, 1st August, 1780. 5. No. 356. 23,763. " The British Linen Company promise to pay on demand to William Bealhe, or bearer, five pounds sterling, value received By order of the ) Five Pounds, Wm Henderson, P Manager. Court of Directors./ Five Pounds, D. Hogorth, P. Accomptant " with intent to defraud John Newall The case was clearly and satisfactorily proved . and it appeared by the production of the royal charter, tlat the British Linen Company were incorporated By the statute 2 Geo. II. c 25, which creates the capital offence of forging promissory notes, it i& provided by the fourth section, that nothing in the Act shall extend to Scotland, An objection in law was taken, That the instrument set out in the indictment, purporting to be an undertaking for the payment of money by a chartered Scotch Company, only entitled the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v John Hannon
...Judges [82] were divided on the question, whether the case was within the 2 Geo. II. c 25 ? But the subsequent case of Rex v. M'Kay, Russ. & Ry. p. 71, settles the law on this subject, and is decisive on the present argument Unless the colonies are specially mentioned, instruments circulate......
-
The Queen v Helen Roberts
...Appeal. THE QUEEN and HELEN ROBERTS. Rex v. DickENR 1 Leach, C. C., 68. Rex v. M'KayENR Russ. & Ry. 71. Rex v. Kirkwood 1 Moo., C. C., 311. Rex v. Goldstain 3 Bro. & B. 201. Regina v. Fulton Jebb., C. C., 48. Regina v. Dick 1 Leach., C. C., 68. Rex v. M'Kay Russ. & Ry., C. C., 71. Kirkwood'......