R v Rogers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 1839 |
| Date | 27 November 1839 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 648
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[629] August Session, 1838, before Mr. Justice Bosanquet, Mr Justice Coleridge, and Mr Justice Coltman August 23rd, 1838. regina v rogers (Writing the acceptance of an existing person to a bill of exchange without authority, or fhe name of a firm or person non-existing in acceptance of a bill, with intent to defraud, is forgery ; and if a person write an acceptance in his own name to represent a fictitious firm, with intent to defraud, it is a forged acceptance ; for if an acceptance represent a fictitious firm, it is the same as if it represented a fictitious person.) The prisoner was indicted for that he having in his custody and possession a certain bill of exchange for £50, upon which was written a forged acceptance, feloniously uttered the forged acceptance, well knowing it to be forged, ^ith intent to defraud John Dawson. The prosecutor, in his examination in chief, gave his evidence as follows " About-ayear and nine months ago, I saw an advertisement in the Times newspaper, in consequence of which I went to No. 3, Jewm Court, Jewin Street , I there saw the prisoner; I said I called in reference to an advertisement I had seen in the paper, stating that mofley was to be obtained on freehold property, life interest, &c ; I inquired for J. Pepper, Esq ; the prisoner said, ' I am the principal , I caused the advertisement in the paper ; I do business in that way-walk in ' ; I went m ; he inquired the nature of the property, which I described as a manor-farm, and land, situated at Wadsworth, in the West Riding of York ; I told him, I had a quarter share at the death of my father, who was aged 64 or 65 ; he inquired the sum I wanted; I told him £150 ; he said, he had no doubt he could obtain that sum for me ; he said, 8fAR.&P. 0. REGINA V. ROGERS 649 he had clients (making use of their names) living at Ipswich, who would purchase the property, and he had no doubt they would give me that sum ; he desired me to rail again in a few days , I did so, and saw him ; he said, he had seen his clients, and that he coalcl not give me that, hut he would give me £100, which T agreed to ; he said, ha would give it me, part in money, and part in a bill at two months ; I agreed to that, [830] and left; I was desired to call again, which I did, a few days afterwards ; he then said, he had heard from his clients, who, not having any money at their command, would give me a £100 bill or two £50 bills ; that was the third time I called, which was about a week or a fortnight after the second time ; I agreed to take two £50 bills ; he did not give me them on that occasion On the nest visit to Jewin Street, which was the latter part of November, when I went into the front parlour, of office, I saw two bills lying on the table ; the prisoner then said, ' I have received the hills from, my clients in the country,' meaning Ipswich , he produced them , they were ready prepared, with the exception of my signature as the drawer on the supposed acceptor ; this is one of the bills he so produced ; I looked at them ; I inquired who this Nicholson & Co , the acceptor, was, and what they were ; he told me they were merchants , I inquired what merchants ; he answered, general merchants, and that they resided at Ipswich, and were highly respectable men, and the bills would be paid on the day they were due ; there was no address on the lull, but ' 3 Jewin Court, Jewin Street,' as their address ; I inquired how it was that the address was Jewin Court, when he had just informed me they lived at Ipswich , he said, they lived at Ipswich, and they would be in town, and the bills would be paid at Praed £ Co., Bankers, Fleet Street, where they were made payable , he then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Patrick Mahony
...on Crimes 326; S. C., 1 Leach, 229; 2 East, P. C., 856. The King v. WattsENR 3 Br. & B. 197; S. C., R. & Ry. 436. Regina v. RogersENR 8 C. & P. 629. Regina v. Nisbett 6 Cox, C. C., 320. The Queen v. BlenkinsopENRENRENR 1 Den. C. C. 276; S. C., 2 C. & K. 531; S. C., 2 Cox, 420. Rex v. Fitzge......
-
R v John Thorn
...in his favour or not ? No distinction is taken between warrant and order ; in the older cases they were considered the same. R. v. Rogers, 9 C. & P. 41, [214] shews that the course of dealing may be admitted to decide the nature of a document, and according to that case this may be a warran......
-
R v Snelling
...seems quite decisive. Das^nt. Parol evidence may be given where there has been-a habit of paying such instruments as in Rex v. Rogers, 9 C. & P. 41. Pollock C. B.-An accurate banker might perhaps require that the order should be addressed to him, but though that should not be done, would no......
-
R v William Mitchell
...or order for the payment of money," withia the meaning of 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will 4, c 66 Ahdy, for the prosecution, referred to R v Rodger-s (9 C. & P 41). Williams, J --This document is not addressed to any person by whom money is to be paid. Upon the face of it, it is merely a certificate of ......