The Queen v Thomas Carter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 153
Crown Cases
S. C. 1 Car. & Kir. 741; 5 L T O. S 9 J P. 775, 1 Cox C. C 170. Referred to, R. v. Hewill, 1848, 13 J. P 23, R v Dawson, 1851, 15 J P. 81
1DH. 66. THE QUEEN V. THOMAS CARTER 153 1845. the quebn v. thomas carter. (Prisoner indicted for forging an " order for the payment of money," with intent (in the first count) to defraud " H D. as one of the public officers of the Y. District Bank," (in the 2nd) to defraud " H D. and others " The instrument was as follows. "Thornton-le-Moor, July 20, 1844 Mr Johnson, Sir, please to pay to James Jackson the sum of £13 by order of Christopher Sadler, Thornton-le-Moor, brewer, the District Bank I shall see you on Monday. Yours obliged, chas sadler" Held.-1. To be an order within stat. 11 Geo IV. and 1 Wm. IV c 66, s 3. 2 Whether the intent might be laid as in the second count-quaere. 3 The certified copy of the return forwarded to the Stamp Office, under stat 7 Geo IV c 46, s. 4, in which it was stated that H D. was one of the public officers of the Y. District Bank, is not made exclusive evidence of that fact.) [S. C. 1 Çar. & Kir. 741 ; 5 L T 0. S 40 , 9 J P. 775 , 1 Cox C. C 170. Keferred to, R. v. Hewitt, 1848, 13 J. P 23 , R v Dawson, 1851, 15 J P. 81 ] The prisoner was convicted before Mr. Justice Coleridge, at the Yorkshire Winter Assizes, 1844, on two counts of an indictment, for uttering the instrument set out below, and which was described as an order for the payment of money , the intent was laid in the first count to be, to defraud %t one Henry Diesser, as one of the public officers of the Yorkshire District Bank In the latter to defraud Henry Diesser and others.'' This was the instrument - Thornton-le-Moor, July 20, 1844. " Mr. Johnson-Sir, please to pay to James Jackson the sum of £13 by order of Christopher Sadler, Thornton-le-Moor, brewer, the District Bank I shall see you on Monday. Yours obliged, chas. sadler." Christopher Sadler was a customer of the Yorkshire District Bank, and had been, till shortly before the uttering, a brewer The agent of the bank to whom the instrument was uttered, stated that Sadler was not in the habit of drawing on the bank, but that if he had been certain of the handwriting being his, he should [66] have paid the money, but it was not proved that Sadler, at the date of the instrument. or time of the uttering, had any effects in the bank Three objections were made .- - First-, That Dresser...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE QUEEN v JOHN VANDERSTEIN and Others
...LockettUNK 2 East, P. C. 940. Rex v. Gilcreest 2 M. C. C. 233. Rex v. Baker 1 Moo. C. C. 231. Rex v. VivianENRENR 1 C. & K. 719; S. C., 1 Den. C. C. 65. Rex v. Ferguson 1 Cox's C. C. 241. Rex v. KellyENR R. & R. 421. Rex v. King Ibid, 332. Rex v. SoaresENR R. & R. 25. Rex v. DavisENR R. & R......