R v Snelling
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1853 |
| Date | 01 January 1853 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 702
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE COURTS OF ERROR
S. C 23 L. J. M C 8; 22 L T O S. 107; 17 J. P 742; 17 Jur 1012; 2 W. R. 54; 2 C. L R. 114; 6 Cox C C 230 Referred to, Peto v Reynolds, 1854, 18 Jur 472; R. v Overton, 1854, post, p. 308.
[219] 1853. regina v. snelling. (The prisoner was indicted for forging an order for the payment of money. The document was m the following form ò " Holton, Mar. 31, 1853 Sirs, Pleas to pay the beans Mrs Smart the sura of Eaight Hundred and 50 4£ ten shillings for rae. James Ramsey." Held, that though this document was not addressed to any one, it might be shewn by evidence to be an order for the payment of money, within the 11 Geo IV & 1 Wm. IV. c 66, s. 3, and for whom it was intended.) [S. C 23 L. J. M 0 8 ; 22 L T 0 S. 107; 17 J. P 742 ; 17 Jur 1012 ; 2 W. R. 54 ; 2 C. L R. 114 ; 6 Cox C C 230 Referred to, Peto v Reynolds, 1854, 18 Jur 472 ; R. v Overton, 1854, post, p. 308.] On the 30th of March last, the prisoner called at the bank of Messrs. Alexander *t Hadleigh, where Mr Ramsey, a farmer at Holton, kept an account, and said that she had called for £800 which she had deposited with Mr Ramsey; that Mr Ramsey had told her she might have it if she called, but that she did not know whether it was in her name or his The clerk told her that he could not pay her without an order ; to which she replied, that Mr Ramsey had said an order would not be necessary, and went away Upon the next day she came again to the bank, and handed to the cashier a forged paper, of which the following is a copy " Holton, Mar. 31, 1853 Sirs, Pleas to pay the Bearis, Mrs. Smart, the sum of Eaight Hundred and 50 4£ ten shillings for me. james ramsey." This paper was folded in the shape of a letter, and was addressed outside, " Mrs. Smart." The cashier asked the prisoner it her name was Smart ? She said, " Yes " He then asked her if she had seen Mr. Ramsey write the oidei 1 She said, " No." He handed it to her. The cashier did not pay the money mentioned in the paper. Upon cross-examination, he said, that if he had seen Mr Ramsey write it, or had known that it was his writing, he should have treated it as an order, and have paid the money, although it was not addressed to Messrs. Alexander Mr Ramsey proved that the paper [220] was a forgery, and the prisoner having been convicted, I saved the question, whether DEARS. 2ffl. REGINA V. SNELLING 703 the papfcr aboTe set forth was, under the circumstances, an order for the payment of money within the statute. john jervis. On the 12th of November, 1853, this case was argued before Jervis C J., Pollock C B , Parke B., Coleridge J , and Williams J. Das^nt for the prisoner It is submitted that...
To continue reading
Request your trial