marthen. On the 23rd of April 1856 the prisoner wrote the following letter to the prosecutor:

"Dear Sir,-Will you kindly send me

The prisoner wrote and posted in a county a letter containing a false pretence, to the prosecutor, who received it in a borough. The prosecutor, in the borough, posted to the prisoner in the county, a letter containing the money obtained by the false pretence, and which the prisoner received in the county:-Held, that, under the statute 7 Geo. 4. c. 64. s. 12, which authorizes the trial in any jurisdiction where the offence is begun or completed, the prisoner might be tried for the offence of obtaining the money by false pretences at the borough Quarter Sessions; part of the offence being the making the false pretence, and the false pretence being made to the prosecutor in the borough, where the letter containing the false pretence was delivered to him by the post-office authorities, whom the prisoner made his agents for that purpose.

The following CASE was submitted for the opinion of this Court by the Recorder of Carmarthen :

At the last Epiphany Quarter Sessions, held for the borough of Carmarthen, John Langton Leech was tried for and convicted of the offence of obtaining money by false pretences. After the case for the prosecution had closed, but before the verdict was delivered, the advocate for the prisoner objected that the venue was not properly laid in the county of the borough of Carmarthen, and that the prisoner was not indictable there. The following evidence, as applicable to the objection, was given. The prosecutor, John Matthews, is the postmaster of Carmarthen, and was

so at the time when the offence was committed by the prisoner. The prisoner was in May last, when the offence was committed, an officer in the department of the General Post-Office, acting as assistant surveyor of the South Wales district, and on duty at Newcastle Emlyn, in the county of Car

Coram Jervis, C.J., Coleridge, J., Cresswell, J., Erle, J. and Martin, B.

end of the month. (signed) J. L. Leech."

It

It appeared that the authorities of the General Post-Office were in the habit of paying their officers by means of money orders, which they called "warrants." appeared by the following receipt for a registered letter that the prisoner received the 121. which he required.

"£12. Received this 24th day of April 1855, of the postmaster of Newcastle Emlyn, a registered letter addressed to John L. Leech, Esq., P. O. Newcastle Emlyn. (Signed) John L. Leech."

On the 2nd of May 1855 the following letter was addressed to, and received by, the prosecutor from the prisoner. It bore no date.

"My dear Sir,-I have got a warrant for 32l. 11s. 6d. Will you please send me the difference between 12., which I have had, and I will send the warrant or bring it myself. I will send you instructions tomorrow about the change at Cenarth Kilgerran, &c. Yours faithfully, (signed) J. L. Leech."

In compliance with this request of the prisoner's, the prosecutor sent to the prisoner by post, in a registered letter posted at Carmarthen within the county of the borough of Carmarthen, 207. 11s. 6d., being the difference between 12. previously sent by the prosecutor to the prisoner and the 327. 11s. 6d., for which the prisoner alleged in his letter he had a warrant. By the following receipt for the registered letter, it was found that the 20l. 11s. 6d. was received by the prisoner at Newcastle Emlyn, in the county of Carmarthen.

"201. 11s. 6d. Received this 3rd day of May 1855, of the postmaster of Newcastle Emlyn, a registered letter addressed to J. L. Leech, Esq., P. O. Newcastle Emlyn. (Signed) J. L. Leech."

In each receipt for the registered letter, the amount contained in the letter was inserted in the receipt for the protection of the prosecutor. The following letter was addressed to the prosecutor by the prisoner, which, amongst other matters refer

ring to the business of the post-office, contains the following paragraph.

66

Gloucester, May 10, 1855. "My dear Sir, I will send you the warrant for 32l. 11s. 6d. in the course of three or four days; I was obliged to return it to London for correction."

It was proved that the prisoner had not on the 2nd of May 1855, or at any period between that day and the 25th of May 1855, any warrant for 32l. 11s. 6d., or for any other sum, and that the prosecutor had not between the 2nd of May 1855 and the day on which the prisoner was tried, received from the prisoner any such warrant, or the sum of 20l. 11s. 6d. received by the prisoner on the 3rd of May 1855. The false pretences on which the prisoner was convicted were the statement in the prisoner's letter written at Newcastle Emlyn, in the county of Carmarthen, and received by the prosecutor in the county of the borough of Carmarthen on the 2nd of May 1855. The money which the prisoner was convicted of obtaining by such false pretences was the 20l. 11s. 6d. posted in the registered letter in the county of the borough of Carmarthen, and received by the prisoner at Newcastle Emlyn, in the county of Carmarthen, on the 3rd of May 1855. The advocate for the prisoner urged that the false pretences were not made, nor the money obtained by the false pretences paid, in the county of the borough of Carmarthen, and that the Court of Quarter Sessions for that borough had therefore no jurisdiction to try the prisoner. I thought the Court had jurisdiction to try the prisoner; but at the request of the advocate for the defence, I thought it advisable to request your Lordships' opinion, whether, having regard to the facts set forth, the venue was properly laid in the county of the borough of Carmarthen.

The prisoner was not represented by counsel.

Bowen, for the prosecution.-The question is, whether the venue is properly laid in the borough of Carmarthen. The prisoner, out of the borough, wrote the letter containing the false pretence. It was sent by post, and received by the prosecutor within the borough; and the prosecutor,

believing the false pretence, posted the letter containing the money in the borough post-office. The prisoner, in fact, received the money in the county. It is submitted, that the offence of obtaining the money by false pretences was completed within the borough, for when the prosecutor posted the money-letter in pursuance of the prisoner's demand, the postmaster in the borough became the prisoner's agent to receive the money for him. The prisoner, therefore, obtained the money within the borough. The Queen v. Jones (1) is in point. Secondly, by the stat. 7 Geo. 4. c. 64. s. 12, if the offence be committed partly in one jurisdiction and partly in another, the offender may be tried in either. Here, part at least of the offence was committed within the borough of Carmarthen.

[CRESSWELL, J.-Suppose the prisoner had sent the letter containing the false pretence to the prosecutor by the hand of an innocent agent.]

generally or particular persons to believe that he is a member of that college, but have no intent of committing any particular fraud or doing any specific wrong to any individual, he is not guilty of the offence of forgery at common law.

This CASE was stated by Bramwell, B. from the Spring Assizes 1856.

he was

Henry Hodgson was indicted at common law for forging and uttering a diploma of the College of Surgeons. The indictment was in the common form. The College of Surgeons has no power of conferring any degree or qualification, but before admitting persons to its membership it examines them as to their surgical knowledge, and if satisfied therewith, admits them, and issues a document called a diploma, which states their membership. The prisoner had forged one of these diplomas. He procured one actually issued by the College of Surgeons, erased the name of the person mentioned in it and substituted his own, changed the date and made other alterations to make it appear to be a document issued by the college to him. He hung it up in his sitting-room, and on being asked by two other medical practitioners whether qualified he said he was, and produced this document to prove his assertion. When a candidate for appointment as vaccinating officer, he stated he had his qualification, and would shew it if the person inquiring, the clerk of the guardians who were to appoint to the office, would go to his (the prisoner's) gig. He did not, however, then produce or shew it. The prisoner was found guilty. The facts are to be taken to be that he forged the document in question with the general intent to induce a belief that the document was genuine and that he was a member of the College of Surgeons, and that he shewed it to two persons with the particular intent to induce that belief in those persons, but that he had no intent in forging or in the uttering and publishing (assuming there was one) to commit any particular fraud or specific wrong to any individual. I reserved for the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal the question, whether on these facts he ought to have been found guilty on any of the counts.

Byrne, for the prisoner.-The conviction is wrong. There is no proof of an intent on the part of the prisoner to defraud any one. The case finds that the prisoner forged the diploma with the general intent to induce a belief that he was a member of the College of Surgeons, but that he had no intent to commit any particular fraud or do any specific wrong to any individual. Hanging the forged diploma up in his room is no criminal offence. Forgery is the making a false instrument with intent to deceive and defraud some one. It is defined in 2 Russell on Crimes, 318, "the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's right." The case of The Queen v. Toshack (1), which may be cited for the prosecution, is very distinguishable. There it is alleged that the prisoner had a distinct and specific purpose of deceiving, injuring, prejudicing and defrauding the Trinity House. So in The Queen v. Shearman (2) the prisoner uttered the forged certificate with intent to defraud and deceive and to obtain the emoluments of the office of schoolmaster. This would be to the prejudice of other candidates and of the scholars. Here, the forged instrument never was uttered.

Scotland, for the prosecution.-A diploma of the College of Surgeons is a document of a public nature, and forging a document of a public character, malo animo, is an offence at common law, though there be no specific intent to defraud. The forging a private document is different. In such case there must be a particular intent to defraud. A diploma confers on a man the position of a member of the College of Surgeons, and qualifies him for holding certain situations. It is given under a royal charter, and relates to all the public. None but a member of the College can be surgeon of a gaol or lunatic asylum. He has also certain privileges, such as an exemption from serving on juries.

[JERVIS, C.J.-It is the examination, not the diploma, that gives the qualification.]

The diploma is evidence of the party being a member of the College of Surgeons. Forging a record or certificate for holy orders is an offence at common law-2 Russell, 357. In that work, a passage from Hawkins, P.C. c. 70. s. 11, is cited and adopted, in which it is suggested that forging a public document is punishable though no one be injured, but that forging a private document may be no crime, unless some one be injured by it. The King v. Ward (3) is the first case which shews that a man may be indicted for forging a private document if it be with intent to injure

some one.

[BRAMWELL, B.-Is it an offence for a man to attempt by fraudulent means to represent himself as a member of the College of Surgeons?]

[JERVIS, C.J.-How would you frame an indictment for forging this document before the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100?]

The indictment should state that the prisoner falsely and maliciously forged a certain document of a public nature, namely, a diploma, setting it out, with intent to defraud. It would not be necessary to allege an intent to defraud any one in particular.

[JERVIS, C.J.-Before the late act it was necessary to state whom it was intended to defraud. Upon the facts of this case, who would be the parties whom you could allege that the prisoner intended to defraud?]

It is difficult to say who should be named. That point is not necessary to consider, since the recent act renders it unnecessary to allege an intent to defraud any particular person. It is not now necessary to prove an intent to defraud any one individual-Stat. 14 & 15 Vict.

c. 100. s. 8.

[BRAMWELL, B.-Would it be sufficient to allege that the document was forged with the intent of defrauding any one whom it might be convenient hereafter to defraud?]

If necessary to state the parties to be defrauded, it might perhaps be alleged that the prisoner intended to deceive and defraud certain persons unknown patients

(3) 2 Ld. Raym. 1461.

of his late partner. In The Queen v. Toshack the forged instrument was purely of a private character, consequently it was necessary to allege an attempt to defraud. In The Queen v. Shearman there is the allegation that the prisoner committed the act with intent to injure, prejudice and deceive.

JERVIS, C.J.—I am of opinion that this conviction was wrong. The recent statute 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, with reference to criminal pleading, does only that which it professes to do, alter the form of the pleadings. It does not alter the law or the character of the offence charged in the indictment. This case, therefore, may be treated just as if it had occurred before the statute. The indictment is for forgery at common law. I do not stop to consider whether the document here is, or is not, of a public nature, or whether there may be any different rule as to forging public or private documents. I am, however, inclined to think that this is not a public document. But, in either case, to support an indictment for forgery, there must be at the time of the forging an intent to defraud, and it is not found that at the time this instrument was forged there was any such intent. There was no uttering at the time that there was an intent to defraud.

WIGHTMAN, J.-This is not a case where the prisoner has been guilty of uttering, but only of forging. Had the case been before the late act, which applies only to the form of the pleadings, the charge in the indictment must have been that the prisoner forged the document with intent to defraud some one. There is nothing to shew that at the time this instrument was forged there was an intent to defraud any

one.

The rest of the JUDGES concurred.

Conviction quashed.

Metropolitan Building Act-Surveyor's Fees-Receipt of Fees improperly-Liability of Surveyor-Jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions-Certiorari.

A complaint was made to Justices at Quarter Sessions against C. B, a district surveyor under the Metropolitan Buildings Act, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 84, which makes it an offence, by section 79, "if any surveyor demand or wilfully receive any higher fee than he shall be entitled to under this act, or if in his capacity of surveyor he receive a fee for any act or omission in respect of which he is not entitled to any remuneration." The complaint alleged that three dwellinghouses of the fourth rate were covered in by the 29th of November; and that three privies attached and belonging one to each of the said houses were carried up at the same time with the houses, and covered in by the 2nd of December, within twenty-one days after the said houses had been covered in; that in December C. B. delivered to complainant an account claiming a fee of 21. 2s. in respect of each of the said houses, which was paid in January; that in February C. B. delivered another account to complainant, claiming a fee of 10s. in respect of each of the privies, and demanded payment of the same, and did in his capacity of surveyor wilfully receive the same from the complainant, not being entitled thereto under the act. Upon hearing this complaint the Quarter Sessions made an order, under section 79. of the said act, stating the complaint to be well founded, and discharging C. B. from his office of surveyor forthwith. The complaint and order had been removed by certiorari, upon affidavits tending to shew that C.B. had claimed and received the fees in respect of the privies, on the assumption of fact that they had not been carried up and covered in within twenty-one days of the covering in of the dwelling-houses, and that this fact was the question raised before the Sessions. The certiorari was taken away by section 104. of

the act.

Held (Lord Campbell, C.J. differing), that the Sessions, under section 79. of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 84, had no jurisdiction to make the order, and that it must, therefore, be quashed. NEW SERIES, XXV.—MAG. CAS.

By Erle, J., that it appeared from the complaint, or, if that were doubtful in its meaning, from the affidavits, which might then be looked at, that the fees were claimed and received on the assumption of fact that the privies were not carried up and covered in within the twenty-one days; and that the 79th section did not extend to a fee so claimed and received, though the assumption were found by the Sessions to be mistaken.

By Coleridge, J., that under section 79. the jurisdiction of the Sessions was confined to the case of the receiving a fee for an act or the omission to do an act, for which, even if done or omitted to be done, as alleged, no fee is authorized by the act; and that the complaint, after reference to the affidavits, which were admissible to disprove jurisdiction, shewed that the question tried and decided at the Sessions had reference to facts which, if the surveyor were correct, entitled him to the fee claimed.

By Lord Campbell, C.J., that the affidavits could not be looked at. That the whole proceeding upon the face of it appeared to be regular; and that as the complaint, which was found to be true, charged that the surveyor wilfully demanded and received a fee for an act in respect of which he was not entitled to receive any remuneration, the Sessions appeared to have jurisdiction to make the order; and that the certiorari, therefore, ought to be quashed.

In this case a writ of certiorari had issued for the removal into this court of the following order and complaint:-Be it remembered, that at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace of our Lady the Queen, holden at Maidstone, in and for the county of Kent, on &c., before &c., the following order was made upon hearing a complaint of David Willoughby, of Forest Hill, in the parish of Lewisham, in the county of Kent, grocer, in writing under his hand, against Charles Robert Badger, district surveyor of the said parish of Lewisham, appointed under and by virtue of the provisions of an act of parliament, passed in the eighth year of the reign of Her present Majesty, intituled 'An Act for regulating the Construction and the Use of Buildings in the Metropolis and the Neighbourhood,' setting

M