Mr. Justice Le Blanc.—I cannot take it to be an appointment in writing; and I consider the evidence which has been given as to the use of stamps as perfectly admissible, and as proof to go to the jury.
His lordship having overruled this objection,
Mr. Scarlett said, I will now trouble your lordship with respect to my second objection, which I consider as the most material and as decisive of the fate of the prosecution. The prisoner is substantially charged with forging a die or stamp used by the commissioners, with an intent to defraud the revenue. Now in the first place it is clearly proved by the gentlemen from the Stamp-office, that the whole of the stamp, except the words “two pounds,” is genuine, and also that the stamp has been issued from the office. I need not insist before your lordship that to constitute a forgery there must be an alteration or imitation of some material part of a die, stamp, or instrument. In the present case it is alleged, that the “II Pounds” in the stamp which has been produced in court is not an impression from the genuine stamp. But in order to substantiate this charge, the prosecutors ought to have gone much further, and have proved that there had been an alteration in the value of the stamp. When the stamp was issued from the office it must have borne some value, and for aught that appears in evidence, it might have been of the value of 2l., and therefore I have a right to presume that it was of that value, and that whatever alteration may have taken place in it, has only been a re-impression of the original words denoting the value of it. Now, my lord, I contend, that if this was the only alteration made in this stamp, the charge against the prisoner cannot be sustained. I will put a case, Suppose a man erase from a Bank-of-England note, a five-pound note for instance; he obliterates, suppose, by some chemical process, Five Pounds, and then impresses upon it the same value. This clearly would not be a forgery, nor could he be convicted, unless it could be proved that this note had previously been of a lower value, and this would be a case exactly resembling the present prosecution. There are two circumstances necessary to constitute a forgery, the counterfeiting or altering the material part of an instrument, that which affects its value, and the doing it with an intent to defraud. I contend therefore, with great confidence, that neither of these has been proved in the present case, because no alteration affecting the value of the stamp has been even attempted to be proved; and that unless it can be proved that the alteration was of such a nature as to alter its value, and make it pass for a different sum to what it originally bore, the case on the part of the prosecution cannot be sustained, and the prisoner must be discharged from this prosecution. Mr. Scarlett dwelt on this point a considerable time, placing it in various points of view, and illustrating it by reference to similar cases.
Mr. Littledale and Mr. Williams followed on the same side.
Mr. Park on the other side, urged that the objections could not prevail; and that the stamp having been altered in its essential part—that which gave it operation, the forgery was clearly made out.
Sir Simon Le Blanc gave his decision in the following terms: “I have been anxious to hear and to attend to all that has been offered in support of the objections taken by the counsel for the prisoner. The charge against the prisoner is substantially this, that by a false die or mark he impressed or caused to be impressed the resemblance of a die used by the commissioners on a parchment-deed, with an intent to defraud the revenue. To this, two objections have been urged; the first objection is, that evidence has not been given, that the die of which this impression is alleged to be the resemblance, was a die used by the direction and authority of the commissioners of the stamps; and the second objection denies that any forgery has been committed. With respect to the first objection the court has already expressed its opinion, that there is evidence to go to the jury of the use of the die by the commissioners, and this is all that is necessary to be given in evidence. The Act of the 48 George III., which imposes this duty, and the 52 George III., which unites in one act all the laws inflicting the punishment of death for offences against the revenue laws, both agree in this. The 48 of George III. in reference to this point enacts, “That if any person shall forge or counterfeit, or cause to be forged or counterfeited, any stamp or die, which shall be provided, made, or used, in pursuance of this Act, or of any former Act,” shall be adjudged guilty of felony, &c. The 52 George III. after stating “that if any person shall after the passing of this Act, forge, &c. any mark, stamp or die, used by or under the direction of the commissioners,” &c. goes on to add, “or by or under the direction of any person or persons legally authorised on that behalf.” The court therefore holds, that the use by the commissioners is all that is requisite, and that of this use there is evidence to submit to the consideration of the jury. The court therefore does not consider this objection as valid. The other objection proceeds on the ground, that no forgery has been committed, inasmuch as it has not been proved, that any alteration has been made in the value of the stamp. It is contended, that as a considerable part of the stamp has been proved to be genuine, and must have been issued from the Stamp-office, with words denoting its value, this value, for aught that appears to the contrary, may have been the same that is now impressed upon it, and that in fact there has only been a re-impression of the same words which were upon the stamp when it was first issued. And upon this assumption it is contended, that as no material part of the instrument has been altered, there has been no legal forgery. But it is unnecessary to give any opinion on the validity of this inference, because the foundation has not been laid, on which alone there could be a reason for examining it, there having been no evidence given to prove that this stamp was originally of the value of two pounds, and it undoubtedly lay upon the prisoner to prove this. For the case stands thus: There is a forged impression of a die upon an instrument, proved to have been in the possession of the prisoner, under circumstances which certainly call for explanation, and also in whose possession a number of dies are found, made too by his own order, and two of which appear to have been used to make an impression, an impression proved to be false and counterfeit upon this instrument. If these facts are not accounted for by evidence, or explained somehow or other, the presumption in law is, that this false impression was forged for the purpose of increasing or altering its value, and for the purpose of defrauding the revenue. This presumption thus raised it is for the prisoner to repel by evidence, but there is certainly prima facie evidence to go to a jury. That the alteration of a material part of an instrument is a forgery has been solemnly determined, by all the Judges, in a modern case, so that it cannot now be called in question. I cannot therefore, on these grounds, stop the cause from going on.” The learned Judge concluded by calling on the prisoner for his defence.
Mr. Blackburn, who laboured under great and evident emotion, addressed the Court and Jury in the following terms:—
“In the painful and anxious situation in which I am unhappily placed, I am ill-fitted for the task of addressing you on this occasion. Agitated as I am between hope and fear, I can only solemnly assure you that I never forged a stamp in my life; but the public mind has been prejudiced against me by unfounded reports and advertisements, containing vile insinuations against me. But, gentlemen, I entreat and charge you upon your oaths, that you banish all that you have heard out of this court from your minds, and all that I have to wish from you is, that you be influenced only by the evidence, and that you will do unto me as you would wish to be done unto, were you placed in my unfortunate situation. I have practised as an attorney among my townsmen and neighbours with credit and respectability for twenty-seven years; you will hear from them upon their oaths, the character I have maintained during that period. In making my defence, I have many great and, indeed, insuperable difficulties to contend with: I am called to furnish an answer, and that by evidence, against a charge which I never heard of until I entered this court, for until I heard the indictment read I had no knowledge of that which they have imputed to me by this indictment, and of course it was absolutely impossible for me to be prepared with evidence to rebut the charge. With respect to the deed in question, I know nothing of it, it has been long out of my possession, and it is clear by the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, that it has been very much exposed. I would only observe that if it had not had a regular stamp affixed to it, the engrossing clerk must have seen it, and it must likewise have been observed at the office when the deed was registered. When my house was searched, my account-books were taken away, which has deprived me of all means of tracing the deed in question, or of proving where the stamp was bought; I had therefore no clue to direct my search. With respect to the spoiled stamps, I would observe, that they have lain by me a long time, and that the period of claiming the allowance for them has long elapsed. It often happens, that after a deed is engrossed, the execution may be delayed a very considerable time beyond the period allowed for claiming the allowance, and if ultimately it should not be executed the stamp would be entirely lost; this will account for the spoiled stamps which in a long series of time have been accumulated. I declare to you, gentlemen, that the deed in question had upon it a regular stamp when it was executed in my office, and I trust you will not presume anything against me; that you will attend only to the evidence, and that you will decide upon my fate with the same candour as you would wish in similar circumstances to have shown to you. My life is in your hands. I shall bow with resignation to your decision, and I trust that your decision will be right.”
As many as twenty-four gentlemen of the highest respectability were called to speak to the prisoner’s character, and they all joined in declaring that they believed him incapable of committing such an offence as that which was imputed to him.
The learned Judge then proceeded to sum up the case, and the Jury having retired from the Court, for about a quarter of an hour, returned with a verdict of Guilty.