This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1862 Excerpt: ...if the notes had been in any place under the prisoner's control, or put there by his direction, it would have been enough, and it was the prevailing opinion amongst them that every uttering would include a custody and possession within the statute.6 But a letter found in the prisoners lodgings, but not upon him, he being in custody when it came, cannot be read to show a guilty knowledge.8 Indictment. The indictment for forging a bank note states that A. on, &c, feloniously did forge a certain note of the Bank of England with intent to defraud. There will be a second count for uttering. The same form will serve for a "bank post bill," t. e. "a certain bank post bill." Upon one occasion, it was held that it was not competent to describe a bank post bill as a bill of exchange, but the judges said that it might be called a bank bill of exchange. And in the same case they were of opinion, that discharging an indorsement and inserting another, or making' it therebv a general instead of a special indorsement, was an alteration of an indorsement. An objection was once made that the indictment omitted to express in what manner, or to whom the notes in question were disposed of, but the judges observed that the general allegation was sufficient.6 It has been made a question, whether an indictment for forgery upon a joint stock bank must lay the intent to have been to defraud one of the registered officers, whose name is returned under 7 Geo. 4, c. 40, or whether it is sufficient to state the intent generally. But more recently it has been determined that the prosecution need not be in the name of the public officer, yet, nevertheless that if the public officer be named as the party defrauded, there must be an averment of his appointment under ...