The laws against coining, so far as they relate to the current coin of the realm, were consolidated by the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, by which the former statutes were repealed, and new provisions substituted.

Proof of counterfeiting the gold or silver coin.] By the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, s. 3, "if any person shall falsely make or counterfeit any coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin, every such offender shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of felony, and in Scotland, of a high crime and offence, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the [348] court, to be transported beyond the seas for life, or for any term not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding four years; and every such offence shall be deemed to be complete, although the coin so made or counterfeited shall not be in a fit state to be uttered, or the counterfeiting thereof shall not be finished or perfected."

By s. 19, "where any person shall be convicted of any offence under this act, for which imprisonment may be awarded, it shall be lawful for the court to sentence the offender to be imprisoned, with or without hard labor in the common gaol or house of correction, and also to direct that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for the whole, or any portion or portions of such imprisonment, as to the court, in its discretion, shall seem meet."

Now, by the 7 Wm. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 90, s. 5, it its enacted, that "it shall not be lawful for any court to direct that any offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any longer periods than one month at a time, or than three months in the space of a year."

In order to establish the charge of counterfeiting, the prosecutor must prove; 1st, the act of counterfeiting; and 2d, that the coin counterfeited resembled, or was apparently intended to resemble or pass for the king's current gold or silver coin.

Counterfeiting the gold or silver coin-proof of the counterfeiting.] In order to prove that the prisoner was guilty of counterfeiting, it is not

necessary to show that he was detected in the act, but presumptive evidence, as in other cases, will be sufficient, viz. that false coin was found in his possession, and that there were coining tools discovered in his house, &c. But the evidence must be such as to lead to a plain implication of guilt. Two women were indicted for coloring a shilling and a sixpence, and the third prisoner, a man, for counselling them, &c. It appeared that he had visited them once or twice a week; that the rattling of copper money had been heard whilst he was with them, that on one occasion he was seen counting something after he came out; that he resisted being stopped, and jumped over a wall to escape; and that there were found upon him a bad three shilling piece, five bad shillings, and five bad sixpences. Upon a case reserved, the judges thought this evidence too slight to support a conviction. Isaac's case, 1 Russell, 62.

Counterfeiting the gold or silver coin-proof that the coin is counterfeited.] It must be proved both that the coin in question is counterfeit, and that it resembles, or is apparently intended to resemble the king's current gold or silver coin. The fact that the coin counterfeited or resembled, is the king's current gold or silver, may be proved by evidence of common usage or reputation. 1 Hale, P. C. 213.

The proof that the coin in question is in fact false, is provided for by the 17th sect. of the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, which enacts, "that where, upon the trial of any person charged with any offence against the act, it shall [*349] be necessary to prove that any coin produced in evidence against such person is false or counterfeit, it shall not be necessary to prove the same to be false and counterfeit by the evidence of any moneyer, or other officer of his majesty's mint, but it shall be sufficient to prove the same to be false or counterfeit by the evidence of any other credible witness."

In proving the coin to be counterfeit, two questions may arise; first, whether it is in such a state of completion as to be properly described as false and counterfeit coin; and secondly, whether it does resemble or is apparently intended to resemble or pass for the king's current gold or silver coin.

With regard to the first question, it is enacted by the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, s. 3, that the offence of counterfeiting shall be deemed to be complete, although the coin so made or counterfeited shall not be in fit state to be uttered, or the counterfeiting thereof shall not be finished or perfected. Notwithstanding this provision, there must still, it is apprehended, be a substantial making or counterfeiting proved, and that it will not be sufficient merely to show that steps have been taken towards a counterfeiting. The clause appears to have been intended to provide against such cases as that of Harris, where the metal requiring a process of beating, filing, and immersing in aqua fortis, to render the coin passable, the judges held that the prisoner could not be convicted of counterfeiting. Harris's case, 1 Leach, 135. See also Varley's case, 1 Leach, 76; 2 Wm. Black. 682; 1 East, P. C. 164.

The question whether the coin alleged to be counterfeit does, in fact, resemble or is apparently intended to resemble or pass for the king's current gold or silver coin, is one of fact for the jury, in deciding which they must be governed by the state of the coinage at the time (1). Thus,

(1) Case of Quin and al., 6 Rogers' Rec. 63.

where the genuine coin is worn smooth, a counterfeit bearing no impression is within the law, for it may deceive the more readily for bearing no impression, and in the deception the offence consists. Welsh's case, 1 East, P. C. 164; 1 Leach, 293; Wilson's case, 1 Leach, 285. Nor will a variation, not sufficient to prevent the deception, render the coin less a counterfeit. Thus it is said by Lord Hale, that counterfeiting the lawful coin of the kingdom, yet with some small variation in the inscription, effigies, or arms, is a counterfeiting of the king's money. 1 Hale, P. C. 215.

It is not necessary to prove that the counterfeit coin was uttered, or attempted to be uttered. 1 Hale, 215, 229; 3 Inst. 16; 1 East, P. C.

165.

Proof of coloring counterfeit coin or metal—and filing, and altering legal coin.] By the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, s. 4, "if any person shall gild or silver, or shall, with any wash or materials capable of producing the color of gold or of silver, wash, color or case over any coin whatsoever, resembling or apparently intended to resemble, or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin, or if any person shall gild or silver, or shall, with any wash or materials capable of producing the color of gold or of silver, wash, color or *case over any piece of silver or copper, or [ *350 ] of coarse gold, or coarse silver, or of any metal or mixture of metals respectively, being of a fit size and figure to be coined, and with intent that the same shall be coined into false and counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin; or if any person shall gild, or shall, with any wash or materials capable of producing the color of gold, wash, color, or case over any of the king's current silver coin, or file, or in any manner alter such coin, with intent to make the same resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold coin; or if any person shall gild or silver, or shall, with any wash or materials capable of producing the color of gold or silver, wash, color, or case over any of the king's current copper coin, or file, or in any manner alter such coin, with intent to make the same resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin; every such offender shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for life, or for any term not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding four years."

As to the power of awarding hard labor and solitary confinement, in cases of imprisonment, see ante, p. 348.

The act of gilding, or silvering, or coloring, or washing, must be proved; and in the latter case, it must appear that the wash or materials were capable of producing the color of gold or silver. The words of the former statute were, "with any wash or materials producing the color, &c." Doubts arose upon the effect of these words, where the color of gold or silver had not been actually produced, but the coin wanted some further operation to fit it to be passed. Case's case, 1 East, P. C. 165; 1 Leach, 154 (n.); Lavey's case, 1 Leach, 153; 1 East, P. C. 166. The doubts, however, cannot exist upon an indictment under the 2 Wm. 4, s. 4, which makes it immaterial whether the color has been in fact produced. The act of coloring may be proved by evidence that coin so colored was

found in the prisoner's house, or had been procured there, and that the wash or materials required for the purpose were discovered in his pos

session.

Proof of impairing or diminishing the coin.] By the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, s. 5, "if any person shall impair, diminish, or lighten, any of the king's current gold or silver coin, with intent to make the same so diminished, impaired, or lightened, pass for the king's current gold or silver coin, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for any term not exceeding fourteen years, nor less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three years." The act of diminishing or impairing, if not shown by direct evidence, may be proved by circumstances, as showing that the prisoner had dimin[*351] ished coin in his possession, and also filings, &c. The *intent to pass such coin must then be proved, and if found upon his person, it would be a question for the jury to say whether he did not intend to pass it.

Proof of uttering counterfeit gold or silver coin.] The various offences, with regard to the uttering false gold or silver coin, are comprised within the 7th section of the 2 Wm. 4, c. 34, which enacts, "that if any person shall tender, utter, or put off any false or counterfeit coin, resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for, any of the king's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, every such offender shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland, of a crime and offence, and, being convicted thereof, shall be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one year; and if any person shall tender, utter, or put off any false or counterfeit coin, resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, and such person shall, at the time of such tendering, uttering, or putting off, have in his possession, besides the false or counterfeit coin so tendered, uttered, or put off, one or more piece or pieces of false or counterfeit coin, resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin, or shall, either on the day of such tendering, uttering, or putting off, or within the space of ten days then next ensuing, tender, utter, or put off any more or other false or counterfeit coin, resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the king's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, every such offender shall, in England and Ireland, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland, of a crime and offence, and, being convicted thereof, shall be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years; and if any person who shall have been convicted of any of the misdemeanors, or crimes and offences hereinbefore mentioned, shall afterwards commit any of the said misdemeanors, or crimes and offences, such person shall, in England and Ireland, be deemed guilty of felony, and in Scotland, of a high crime and offence, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for life, or for any term not less than seven years, or be imprisoned for any term not exceeding four years."

Where a prisoner was convicted under the first part of the above sec

tion, of two separate utterings contained in two counts of the same indictment, the judges held that one judgment for two years' imprisonment was bad, and that there should have been two consecutive judgments of one year's imprisonment each. Robinson's case, 1 Moo. C. C.

413 (a).

Proof of the uttering counterfeit gold or silver coin-evidence of the simple uttering.] Upon an indictment for the simple offence of uttering, the prosecutor must prove the act of uttering, &c. as charged, that the money was counterfeit, and that the prisoner *knew it to be such. [ *352] The practice of "ringing the changes" was held to be an offence under the repealed statute, 15 Geo. 2, c. 28; Frank's case, 2 Leach, 644; and it is so likewise under the present act. The coin must be proved to be counterfeit in the usual way.

The mode of proving guilty knowledge has been already considered at length. Ante, p. 85.

A prisoner was indicted for uttering a base coin: it was proved that he had uttered a counterfeit shilling; and in order to show a guilty knowledge, the counsel for the prosecution tendered in evidence the fact of five other counterfeit shillings having been found in his possession five days after. Taunton, J., after conferring with Alderson, B., held the evidence admissible. Harrison's case, 2 Lewin, C. C. 118. This decision is at variance with Taverner's case, ante, p. 87; but seems the more correct ruling.

Where several persons are charged with an uttering, it must appear either that they were all present, or so near to the party actually uttering, as to be able to afford him aid and assistance. Where three persons were indicted for uttering a forged note, and it appeared that one of them uttered the note in Gosport while the other two were waiting at Portsmouth, till his return, it having been previously concerted that the prisoner who uttered the note should go over the water for the purpose of passing the note, and should rejoin the other two; all the prisoners having been convicted, it was held that the two prisoners who had remained at Portsmouth not being present at the time of uttering, or so near, as to be able to afford any aid or assistance to the accomplice who actually uttered the note, were not principals in the felony. Soare's case, Russ. and Ry. 25; 2 East, P. C. 974. The two prisoners were charged with uttering a forged note. It appeared that they came together at Nottingham, and left the inn there together, and that on the same day, between two and three hours from their leaving the inn, one of the prisoners passed the note; both the prisoners being convicted, the judges held the conviction wrong as to the prisoner who was not present, not considering him as present aiding and abetting. Davis's case, Russ. and Ry. 113 (6).

If two utterers of counterfeit coin, with a general community of purpose go different ways, and utter coin apart from each other, and not near enough to assist each other, their respective utterings, are not joint utterings by both. Manners's case, 7 C. and P. 801 (c).

The giving of a piece of counterfeit coin in charity, is not an uttering within the statute, although the person may know it to be counterfeit, for there must be some intention to defraud. Page's case, 8 C. and P. 122 (d). (b) 1 Ibid. 113.

(a) 2 Eng. C. C. 413.

(c) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xxxii. 743. (d) Id. xxxiv. 322.