The King v John Hevey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1782 |
| Date | 01 January 1782 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 217
THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S C. 2 East, P. C. 856
1782. case CXV the king- v john hevey (To utter a bill of exchange under a false assertion of being the person to whom it was made payable, and by whom it had been indorsed, is a misdemeanor Sec Shepherd's case, ante, p. 226, case 113; Dougl 300 ) [S C. 2 East, P. C. 856 J At the Old Bailey in January Session 1782, John Hevey was indicted oti the statute 2 Geo. II. c. 25, before Mr Justice Ashhurst, for forging an indorsement on the back of a bill of exchange, in the name of " B M'Carty," with intent to defraud William Masteis and Edward Beauchamp, against the statute There was a second count, for uttering and publishing a forged indorsement in the name of " B. M'Carty," with the like intention, against the statute. " No. 59. 30, Os Od. Bath Bank, Nov 10, 1781 " Thirty-one days after sight, pay Mr. Barnard M Carty, or order, Thirty Pounds, Value received, for Smith, Moore, and Co. * jer connell." " To Rich. Beatty and Co. " No. 19, Gt. St Helen's, Londou." (Ace R B and Co ) It appeared in evidence, that the prisoner, by the name of John Hevey, had procured the copper-plate to be engraved from which the skeleton of the bdl in question had been printed In the month of November 1781, the prisoner went to the shop of the prosecutors, who were pawnbrokers in Holborn, bargained for a gold watch at the price of eighteen [230] guineas, and offered the Bath Bank Bill above described in payment. Mr Beauchamp examined the bill, and shewing the indorsement to the prisoner, asked him if his name was M'Catty The prisoner replied, " Yes, Sir, it is. You have no occasion to be afraid, it is better than a note of the Bank of England , it is a very good bill, and I have indorsed it " Mr Beauchamp, however, refused to take it, until he had sent his servant with it into Great St Helen's, to know whether the acceptance Richard Beatty and Co was gpnuine. The servant took the bill according to the directions, and received m-fotmation Irom a gentleman who answered to the name of Beatty, that it was a good bill, and would be regularly paid when due. In consequence of this information, the prosecutor let the prisoner have the watch,, gave him 11, 2s in exchange, and a bill of parcels, with a receipt in the name of M'Carty for the 18, 18s Od The bill was not paid, nor were there any such persons as Smith, Moore, and Co to be found at Bath The prisoner and Beatty were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Patrick Mahony
...3 B. & B. 228; S. C., R. & Ry. 405. The King v. Parkes & BrowneENR 2 Leach, C. C. 75. Hevey's caseENRUNK Rus. 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., ......