[list-cumbria] Carlisle Patriot, 13 Mar 1824 - Cumberland Spring Assizes (23)

[Petra Mitchinson]

Saturday 13 Mar 1824   (p. 1, col. 5 - p. 4, col. 5, and p. 1, col. 4)

 

CUMBERLAND SPRING ASSIZES. 

 

CROWN CALENDAR. 

 

UTTERING FORGED NOTES. 

 

[continued] 

 

The Prisoner said that STEWART had that day called upon her at twelve, and told her that a note and a clerk were coming against her;
and that was the reason of her observation to the constable. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY submitted that the note charged in the indictment was not a promissory note. 

 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD.-That objection comes in arrest of judgment, if it be an objection. 

 

His Lord summed up the evidence. The Jury, before they could find the prisoner guilty, must, in the first place, be satisfied that
the note was forged; secondly, that it had been traced to the prisoner; and thirdly that she had uttered it with a guilty knowledge,
with an intent to defraud some of the parties named in the indictment. The husband did not appear to have had any to do with it; so
that she did not act under his influence, but solely of her own account. The strongest part of the facts which went to shew a guilty
knowledge, were of an indirect nature, but they were borne out by a variety of circumstances. 

 

The Jury retired, and while they were out, 

 

Mr. COURTENAY renewed his argument in the shape of an arrest of judgment should the Jury bring in an adverse verdict. He contended,
at considerable length, that the note was not a promissory note in England. Who were they who promised to pay? The Commercial
Banking Company of Scotland. Who were the individuals composing this company? No one knows. And the persons whose names were on the
note, did not sign on behalf of the Company, but by "order of the Committee of Management." 

 

Mr. ALDERSON replied, and Mr. PATTESON followed on the same side. They contended that the note was strictly promissory, and referred
to various authorities, independent of analogical argument, to support their propositions. 

 

In about half an hour the jury returned. Their names having been called over, the Foreman said they were all agreed except one, and
he had a question to ask of the Court. 

 

A Juror.-I wish to know if the prisoner has any evidence to show where she got the note; because any body may take a forged note,
particularly the keeper of a public-house. 

 

His Lordship said that the prisoner having refrained from bringing any proof of the kind, though defended by counsel, the
presumption was, that she had none. 

 

Juror.-I am satisfied; but this hung upon my mind. If she has no evidence, I must decide against her. 

 

The jury then returned a verdict of Guilty of uttering a forged note, with a knowledge of its being so; but recommended her to
mercy.-His Lordship asked on what grounds? He was bound, he said, to inquire. The jury seemed at a loss for an answer; and the
learned Judge humanely suggested her large family. 

 

Mr. ALDERSON said he had the pleasure of joining in the recommendation of the jury, at the request of the prosecutors; and
particularly as no other notes had been found on TODD's premises. This was the first forgery of the one pound note the Bank had met
with. 

 

It was now nearly seven o'clock (Saturday night), and the Court adjourned. 

 

On Monday morning, Mr. COURTENAY again urged his argument in arrest of judgment; sure he was that his Lordship would excuse his
anxiety when the life of an individual was at stake. His Lordship had [        ]ted on Saturday night, that the note was promissory
in effect, if not in letter, inasmuch as it was signed by parties in behalf of those who sent it forth. Now the question was,
whether, in a case like this, we should look beyond the instrument; whether we should overlook its defect. And could a Company
promise to pay? 

 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD.-They can as individuals, if not as a company. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY.-Can persons promise to pay? 

 

Mr. Justice HOLROYD.-Almost all great commercial establishments do so. Some even assume names, and others retain those of deceased
persons, when they think the credit of their house is thereby supported. The law binds all as individuals. 

 

Mr. COURTENAY.-But here it is the "Commercial Banking Company" who promise to pay, and no names are given. 

 

His Lordship then gave judgment on the objections at length: he commenced by reading the form of the note:-"The Commercial Banking
Company of Scotland, promise to pay to Edward ROBINSON, or the Bearer, One Pound sterling on demand, at their office there. By order
of the Committee of Management. John REID, p. cashier. James DOUGLAS, p. acct."-The prisoner was indicted for defrauding the
company, and also the individuals WALLACE and THOMPSON. The second intention was clearly sufficient, whatever objections might be
made to the first. The indictment was founded on the G. 2. c. 5, for uttering a promissory note with intent to defraud, &c. The
question then was, whether it be a promissory note under the meaning of that act. The note appeared to him to be a promissory note,
negociable, transferable, and within the mischief contemplated by that act. The Commercial Banking Company of Scotland promise to
pay; the note goes under the denomination of a promissory note, is received as such, and two confidential persons sign it to verify
that they do so promise. If it were signed by persons as promisers in more direct form, it would still only be a verification of a
promise made by persons signing for the company; and it was verified as a note of the company. The statute of Anne, on which stress
had been laid, should be construed liberally, while the 2d of G. 2, should be construed strictly.-Objection, therefore, of no avail.


 

The prisoner was then brought up to receive sentence. His Lordship told her that she had been convicted of a guilty knowledge, and
he fully coincided in the verdict of the jury. Every thing had been done for her by her Counsel; but the law was imperative, and her
life was forfeited to it. Yet in consequence of the recommendation of the jury and the prosecutor, and of her large family, he would
spare her life, and order the sentence of death to be recorded only. What future punishment it would be thought necessary to
inflict, in order to deter others by the example, he could not now say; that must be an after-consideration; and he solemnly
exhorted her to repent of her offence, and discard those notions that, because she might have many calls upon her, she was justified
in resorting to unlawful means of satisfying them.-The prisoner behaved with fortitude and decorum throughout. 

 

 

[to be continued] 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.cumbriafhs.com/pipermail/list-cumbria/attachments/20240731/a0083dcc/attachment.htm>