1771. MILLER'S CASE, of his giving security, &c. (a). That the King might revoke his intended grace on account of this apparent fraud; but as he had not in fact revoked it, and as the prisoner had literally complied with the condition, he ought not to have been convicted upon this indictment. THE prisoner was referred to his original sentence of transportation, as not having performed the condition upon which his pardon was to be granted; that is, he was pardoned on condition of transporting himself within fourteen days. (a) In the case of Hotham v. the East India Company, Hil. Term. 27 Geo. III. it was said by the Court, That no precise technical words are required in a deed to make a stipulation a condition precedent or subsequent; neither does it depend upon its being prior or posterior in the deed; but that it must depend on the nature of the contract, and the acts to be performed by the parties.-1 Term Rep. B. R. 645. See also the same doctrine held by Lord Talbot in the case of Robinson v. Comyns, Forrester's Reports of Cases Temp. Talbot, 166. CASE XLII. THE KING against VARLEY. Forging the WILLIAM VARLEY was found guilty at the Lent Asimpression of sizes for York, in the year 1771, of forging and counterfeitthe current coin on a piece ing a forged and false coin to the similitude of half-a of metal so ir regular that it guinea. will not pass, is not high treason; for incomplete. the crime is S. C. 2 Black. See 1 East, 164. It appeared in evidence, That he had counterfeited the impression of half-a-guinea on a piece of gold which was previously hammered, and was not round, nor would pass in the condition it then was. This, with many others, he delivered to one James Green, who carried them away, and what became of them afterwards could not be proved. MR. JUSTICE GOULD, who tried the prisoner, doubting whether this was high treason, respited the judgment, and laid the case before all the Judges; who (absente BARON ADAMS) were unanimously of opinion, That the crime was See Woolincomplete, and that the prisoner should be recommended to dridge's Case, post. his Majesty for a pardon. 1771. THE KING against ROBERT POWELL. CASE XLIII. is a sufficient instrument; ROBERT POWELL had personated one Taylor Barrow "As follows" in the sale of 400l. East-India Stock to a Mr. Joseph Sykes, averment of and had signed the usual receipt upon the transfer with the the tenor of an name T. BARROW. Powell was convicted of this forgery at and in forgery the Old Bailey in May Session 1771, before MR. JUSTICE averring a ge neral intent to ASTON. The indictment simply charged, That he, on such defraud is sufa day, "feloniously did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, ficient, without setting "&c. a certain receipt for money as follows, that is to say;" out the particular mode by and then set out a fac-simile of the receipt. There were which the also in the same form, the usual counts for uttering the re- fraud was inceipt, knowing it to be forged; and charging the offence to have been committed with an intention to defraud, 1st. Joseph Sykes, 2dly. Taylor Barrow, and 3dly. The East-India S. C. 2 Black. Rep. 787. Company. tended to be effected. UPON the last day of the Session, the prisoner's Counsel S. C. 2 East, moved in arrest of judgment before JAMES EYRE, Esq. Re- ch. 19. s. 53. corder, First, THAT it does not appear upon the face of the indictment, that the tenor of the receipt is set out, for the words," as follows, that is to say," do not import the tenor, or sufficiently shew that the receipt is set out in the words, figures, and letters of it: the indictment should have been, "according to the tenor following." Secondly, THE possibility of a fraud or injury being committed by means of the receipt depends upon the manner in which it was to operate; and therefore the mode of its operation being a material fact, ought to have been distinctly averred in the indictment. For instance, unless Mr. Barrow had possessed the stock, the prisoner could not have sold it, 1771. POWELL'S CASE. See S. C. 2 East, 989. and his receipt upon the transfer would have been vain and To afford the prisoner every possibility of advantage from these objections, the judgment was respited, and the case submitted to the consideration of the Judges on the first day of the ensuing Michaelmas Term, at LORD MANSFIELD'S Chambers. All the Judges, except L. C. J. DE GREY, were present; and upon the first objection they were unanimous, "That a certain receipt for money as follows, that is to "say," is altogether as certain as if it had been said, 66 66 66 ac cording to the tenor following," or, "in the words and figures following, that is to say:" and that if the prosecutor had failed in evidence in proving the receipt verbatim as laid, it would have been a fatal variance. As to the second objection, some of the Judges doubted; but a great majority were of opinion, That in an indictment for forgery, it is sufficient to aver a general intent to defraud a certain person, which intention may be made out by the facts in evidence at the trial. THIS case was afterwards more solemnly argued before all the Judges, except BLACKSTONE, at Serjeants-Inn Hall, on 30th November 1771; and they adhered to their former determination. THE prisoner was executed. 1771. 9 THE KING against BIRCH AND MARTIN. CASE XLIV. be A WILL, is EDWARD BIRCH and Matthew Martin were convicted Indictment at the Old Bailey in September Session 1771, before JAMES for forging a paper-writing EYRE, Esq. Recorder, for publishing as a true will, a cer- purporting to tain false, forged, and counterfeited paper-writing, purporting to be the last will and testament of Sir Andrew Chad"wick deceased, knowing it to be forged;" the tenor of Rep. 790. which was set out in the indictment. good. S. C. 2 Black. 980. It was moved in arrest of judgment, that the indictment S. C. 2 East, should have charged the prisoners with having forged and published "a certain will and testament," &c. and not "a 66 paper-writing purporting to be the last will:" for the statute says, "shall forge a will, &c." IN Michaelmas Term 1771, the question was argued before all the Judges at Serjeants-Inn Hall; and they unanimously agreed, That the indictment was perfectly right, and over-ruled the exception, on a variety of precedents being produced, in which it was laid in the same manner: and they thought that it would be good either way. THE prisoners were executed at Tyburn, on Thursday, January 2, 1772. THE KING against SHAW. CASE XLV. AT the Old Bailey in September Session 1771, Samuel Shaw A prisoner acwas tried before JAMES EYRE, Esq. Recorder, on the statutes charge of fe5 Geo. III. c. 25. s. 17. and 7 Geo. III. c. 50. which enact, lony commit"That if any deputy, clerk, agent, letter-carrier, post-boy, and charger ted, as a sorter "or rider; or any other officer or person whatsoever em- of letters, canployed in receiving, stamping, sorting, charging, carry- victed on an not be con other count, charging him generally as a person employed in the Post-Office, if in fact he is only employed as a sorter of letters.-S. C. 2 East, 680. 1771. SHAW'S CASE. S. C. 2 Black. "ing, conveying, or delivering letters or packets, or in any "other business relating to the Post-Office, shall secrete, " embezzle, or destroy any letter, or packet, or bag of let"ters, which he shall be entrusted with, or which shall have come to his possession, containing any bank-note, bank "post bill, bill of exchange, exchequer bill, South Sea or "East India Bond, &c. &c. or shall steal or take the same "out of any letter or packet that shall come to his posses❝sion, he shall suffer death without the benefit of clergy." THE indictment consisted of four counts. THE first and third counts charged him as "a Clerk em"ployed in SORTING and CHARGING letters in the Post-Office," viz. 1st. With having secreted, embezzled, and destroyed a certain letter containing a bank-note of twenty pounds: 2dly. With having stolen the bank-note out of the letter. THE second and fourth counts respectively charged him with the same offences," as being a person employed in the "business relating to the General Post-Office." THE facts of embezzling the letter and stealing the banknote were very clearly proved; but as it appeared that he was not employed in sorting and charging letters, but in sorting them only, the Jury, by the direction of the Court, found him guilty on the second and fourth counts; and acquitted him on the first and third. UPON this finding it was moved in arrest of judgment, That as the Jury had acquitted him on the counts which charged him as a sorter and charger, and he had not been proved to be a person employed by the Post-Office in any other business than that of a sorter, his conviction could not be supported on the second and fourth counts of the indictment. DURING the course of Michaelmas Term 1771, this case was adjourned to Serjeants-Inn Hall, and argued before eleven of the Judges (absent BLACKSTONE); and they unanimously agreed, That the judgment must be arrested for the causes above alleged: but they were inclined to think the Jury might have convicted the prisoner on the first and |