Evidence. On an indictment for having in possession a die made of iron and steel, proof of a die made of either material will be sufficient; and it seems that if the indictment state that the die was made of iron, steel, and other materials, proof that it was made of any material would be sufficient; and that it would not be necessary even to prove the exact material. The indictment was for having in possession a die made of iron and steel, a witness who saw the die said it was made of iron; another witness, who had not seen it, said that dies were usually made of steel, and that iron dies would not stand; and the judges held that this evidence would support the indictment, for it was immaterial to the offence of what the die was made, and proof of a die either of iron or steel, or both, would satisfy this charge. (m) In proceeding upon the 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26, it was not necessary to prove that money was actually made with the instrument in question. (n) The having tools for coining in possession, with intent to use them, is a misdemeanor at common law. (0) It seems that the degree of similitude to the real coin which the tools or instrument must be capable of impressing in order to bring the case within the statute, must be governed by considerations similar to those which have been stated with respect to the counterfeit coin itself. (p) Whether the instrument in question be calculated to impress the figure, stamp, resemblance, or similitude of the coin current is a question for the jury; and it is clear, that the offence is not confined to an exact imitation of the original and proper effigies of the coin. (q) Upon an indictment which alleges that a prisoner feloniously had in his possession a mould having the resemblance of the obverse side of a shilling impressed upon it, it must be proved that the entire impression was upon the mould. The prisoner was charged in one count with having in his possession a mould, 'upon which was impressed the figure and apparent resemblance of one of the sides (that is to say) the obverse side of the King's current coin called a shilling,' and in another count the word 'reverse' was substituted for 'obverse; the moulds when produced appeared not to have a complete impression of the obverse and reverse sides of a shilling, but only the outside rim, and a slight portion of the other parts of the impression; the entire impressions, however, appeared to have been upon them at one time, but part had been obliterated. It was held, that if the jury believed that no more than part of the impression was impressed upon the moulds while the prisoner was in possession of them, he ought to be acquitted. (r) But where an indictment charges that the prisoner made a mould, which was intended to impress the resemblance of the obverse side of a shilling, it is sufficient to prove that the prisoner made a mould, which would make a part of the impression. One count charged the prisoner with making a mould, 'which said mould was intended to make and impress the figure and apparent resemblance' of the obverse side, and another the reverse side, of a shilling; the evidence being the same as in the former case; it was held, that the term 'intended' did not mean in a state to make an entire impression, and therefore if the prisoner had only begun to make, the intention to make the whole. might be inferred, though only part was actually made, and consequently that the evidence was sufficient. (s) But where upon an indictment for having in possession a mould, upon which was made the figure of one of the sides of a shilling, it appeared that the mould had a perfect impression on one side of it; but that there was no channel, through which the metal runs, and the previous case was cited; Maule, J., held that a mould must be a thing by means of which a person may be able to make a coin; and that a thing by means of which coin cannot be made cannot be a mould; for it requires something to be done to make it a mould. The proof, therefore, was insufficient. As to the words 'any part or parts' contained in the clause, they did not refer to any part of the mould, but to any part of the impression. (t) Where a mould was made to resemble the whole of one side of a coin, which had been worn partly away by use, an indictment under the 2 Will. 4, c. 34, s. 10, might charge the possession of a mould on which was impressed the figure of one of the sides of such coin, as the words 'part or parts' of the sides in that section applied to cases where several moulds were used to make one side of a coin. (u) An indictment charging that the prisoner had in his possession a mould upon which was made and impressed the figure of one of the sides of a coin, is bad for not showing that the figure was on the mould at the time when the prisoner had it in his possession. The words then and there' should be introduced before the word 'made.' (u) Weeks and two other men and two women were indicted for having in their possession a mould impressed with one side of a halfWeeks had occupied a house for a month, and the police one night went to the house and found the other prisoners there. The men attacked the police, whilst the women snatched up something which they threw into the fire. The police preserved part of this, which proved to be fragments of a plaster of Paris mould of a halfcrown, parts of which were still wet. Weeks shortly afterwards came to the house. The women called out to him that the police were there. He nevertheless came in. The house had two rooms on each floor, and a quantity of plaster of Paris was found in a cupboard up stairs, with several bottles of liquid. In a cupboard down stairs an iron ladle, such as might have been used for melting metal, was found; on the hearth in one of the rooms up stairs was found a small portion of white metal and some fragments of plaster of Paris moulds. Thirteen days before Weeks had passed a bad half-crown; but there was no evidence to show that it was made in the mould (8) R. v. Foster, 7 C. & P. 495, Patteson, J. B. (t) R. v. Macmillan, 1 Cox, C. C. 41. (u) R. v. Richmond, 1 C. & K. 240, Rolfe, See R. v. Silcot, 3 Mod. 280. found in the house. The jury found that Weeks knew that the mould was in the house. It was held that Weeks was rightly convicted, as the mould was found in the house of which he was the master, and that the evidence of the uttering of the half-crown by him was rightly admitted to establish the scienter. (v) On an indictment against husband, wife, and boy aged ten years, for having in possession a mould on which was impressed the obverse side of a shilling, it appeared that the boy was apprehended whilst passing a counterfeit half-crown, and on the officer going to the house where he said he resided the husband was found in an upper room. In the lower room the mould and various coining implements were found, and whilst the officer was searching the wife came in, and soon afterwards broke up a mould used in casting counterfeit shillings; on her counterfeit money was found, but none on her husband. Talfourd, J., held that as the husband occupied the room in which the mould was found, prima facie he must be presumed to be in possession of what the room contained; but that presumption might be rebutted, and the jury must consider all the circumstances, and see whether they satisfied them that the trade was carried on there with his sanction. If they were satisfied that the husband was in possession of the mould, they ought to acquit the wife, as she could not in law be said to have any possession separate from her husband; but if they thought that the criminality was on her part alone, and that he was entirely guiltless of any participation in her conduct, she might be convicted. If they thought she broke the mould to screen him from detection, that would not affect the case. Either husband or wife might be convicted on this evidence, but not both. As to the boy, it would be going too far to say that he was a joint possessor with either of his parents. (w) (v) R. v. Weeks, L. & C. 18. (w) R. v. Boober, 4 Cox, C. C. 272. CHAPTER THE FOURTH. OF UTTERING, TENDERING, ETC., COUNTERFEIT COIN.1 In some cases formerly the putting off counterfeit money might amount to treason: as if A. counterfeited the gold or silver coin current, and by agreement before that counterfeiting B. was to take off and vent the counterfeit money, B. was an aider and abettor to such counterfeiting, and consequently a principal traitor within the law. (a) And in the case of the copper coin, B. acting a similar part was an accessory before the fact to the felony, within the statute 11 Geo. 3, c. 40 (now repealed). (b) And if B., knowing that A. had counterfeited money, put off this false money for him after the fact, without any such agreement precedent to the counterfeiting, he seems to be as a receiver of A. because he maintains him. (c) If A. counterfeited money, and B. knowing the money to be counterfeited uttered the same for his own benefit, B. was neither guilty of treason, nor misprision of treason. But he might be proceeded against under the 15 Geo. 2, c. 28 (now repealed), before which statute he was only liable to be punished as for a cheat and misdemeanor. (d) Where the defendant was indicted for unlawfully uttering and tendering in payment to T. H. ten counterfeit halfpence, knowing them to be counterfeit,' and convicted on a count laying this generally, upon reference to all the judges they held it was not an indictable offence. (e) And upon the principles which have been mentioned in a former part of this work, (f) the unlawful procuring of counterfeit coin with intent to circulate it, though no act of uttering be proved, is a misdemeanor. and the possession of counterfeit coin (a) 1 Hale, 214. (b) 1 East, P. C. c. 4, s. 26, p. 178. (c) 1 Hale, 214. (d) 1 East, P. C. c. 4, s. 26, p. 179. 1 Hale, 214. See precedents of indictments for a misdemeanor at common law in uttering a counterfeit half-guinea: Cro. Circ. Comp. 315 (7th edit.). Starkie, 466, 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 116. See also a precedent of an indictment for a misdemeanor at common law, against a man for uttering a counterfeit sixpence, and having another found in his custody, Cro. Cir. Comp. 315, (7th edit.), 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 117. The uttering of false money, knowing it to be There is false, is mentioned as a misdemeanor in the (e) Cirwan's case, Oxford Sum. Ass. AMERICAN NOTE. 1 See Harper v. S, 8 Humph. 93. Brown v. P, 4 Gilm. 439. Fox v. S, 5 How. (U. S.) 410. U. S. v. Marigold, 9 How. (U. S.) 560. unaccounted for was held to be evidence of an unlawful procurement with intent to circulate. (g) But the uttering, or tendering in payment of counterfeit money is now provided for. SEC. L. Of uttering &c., Counterfeit Coin of the Realm. Uttering counterfeit gold or silver coin. By the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 9, Whosoever shall tender, utter, or put off any false or counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the Queen's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland of a crime and offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one year, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.' (h) Uttering, accompanied by possession of other counterfeit coin, or followed by a second uttering. Sec. 10. Whosoever shall tender, utter, or put off any false or counterfeit coin resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the Queen's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, and shall, at the time of such tendering, uttering, or putting off, have in his custody or possession, besides the false or counterfeit coin so tendered, uttered, or put off, any other piece of false or counterfeit coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the Queen's current gold or silver coin, or shall, either on the day of such tendering, uttering, or putting off, or within the space of ten days then next ensuing, tender, utter, or put off any false or counterfeit coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the Queen's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland of a crime and offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.' (i) Having three or more pieces of counterfeit gold or silver coin in possession, &c., with intent, &c. Sec. 11. C Whosoever shall have in his custody or possession three or more pieces of false or counterfeit coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the Queen's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, and with intent to utter or put off the same or any of them, shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and (g) R. v. Fuller & Robinson, ante, p. 199. The possession in this case was under particularly suspicious circumstances; the coin being wrapped up in parcels with soft paper to prevent it from rubbing. (h) This clause is taken from the 2 Will. 4, c. 34, s. 7. As to hard labour, &c., see ante, p. 218. See the interpretation clause, ante, p. 208. () This clause is taken from the 2 Will. 4, c. 34, s. 7. The words 'any other piece' are substituted for one or more piece or pieces,' and the words 'any false or counterfeit coin' for any more or other false or counterfeit coin.' |