The King v Dick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1770 |
| Date | 01 January 1770 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 137
THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 East, P. C. 925. Considered, R. v. Roberts, 1857, 7 Cox C. C. 422
1770. case XXXVI the king t dick (Forging a Scotch bank-note is not within the English statutes against forgery.) [S C. 2 East, P C. 925. Considered, R. v Eaten*, 1857, 7 Cox C. C 422 ] The prisoner was convicted at Newcastle upon Tyne, in the year 1770, of knowingly uttering a forged and counterfeited writing obligatory, commonly called a Scotch bank-note,(a) with intention to defraud John Ormston and Joseph Lamb. The note was in the following form : [69] " Five Pounds. Bond Accord. Sterling. " No. -VV- " Aberdeen, 1 May, 1767. " The Banking Company in Aberdeen are hereby obliged to pay to James Brand, or bearer, on demand, at their Office here, Five Pounds Sterling, by order of the directors. " B. sutherland, " Cashier," 'CW. BtebnerA^ , ä t -o j.i Directors. J. Burnett, f It appeared in evidence, that the Company was an association of most oi the gentlemen of that county ; and that they issued notes under the signature of a 'Cashier and two Directors, in the form above-mentioned. It was submitted to the Twelve Judges, Whether this note is within the ineanmg of the statute of 2 Geo. II. c. 25...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
H. M. Advocate v Burns
...Law of Scotland, vol. i, p. 390. 8 (1831) Shaw's Justiciary Cases 242. 9 (1867) 5 Irv. 375. 10 (1882) 4 Coup. 576. 11 Rex v. DickENR, (1770) 1 Leach 68; Rex v. M'KeayENR, (1826) 1 Mood. 130; Regina v. HannonENR, (1839) 9 C. & P. 12 An Act for the better Prevention of the Forgery of the Note......
-
James Kirkwood's Case
...purported to be drawn in Dublin, and was made payable there it was not an offence to utter the same in England. He cited Dick's case, 1 Leach, 68, wMch was an indictment on 2 Geo. II. c. 25, the original forgery Act, for uttering a Scotch note at Carlisle * Courtemay, in reply, contended th......
-
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'......