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 her 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."

When the offence of counterfeiting is complete. By s. 30, "every offence of falsely making or counterfeiting any coin, or of buying, selling, receiving, paying, tendering, uttering, or putting off, or of offering to buy, sell, receive, pay, utter, or put off any false or counterfeit coin against the provisions of this act, shall be deemed to be complete, although the coin so made or counterfeited, or bought, sold, received, paid, tendered, uttered, or put off, or offered to be bought, sold, received, paid, uttered, or put off, shall not be in a fit state to be uttered, or the counterfeiting thereof shall not be finished or perfected."

Punishment of principals in the second degree, and accessories. By s. 35, "in the case of every felony punishable under the act, every principal in the second degree, and every accessory before the fact, shall be punishable in the same manner as the principal in the first degree is by this act punishable; and every accessory after the fact to any felony punishable under this act shall be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labor."

Counterfeit medals. By 46 & 47 Vict. c. 45 (the Counterfeit Medal Act), "If any person, without due authority or excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the person accused), makes or has in his possession for sale, or offers for sale, or sells, any medal, cast, coin, or other like thing, made wholly or partially of metal or any metallic combination, and resembling in size, figure, and color any of the queen's current gold or silver coin, or having thereon a device resembling any device on any of the queen's current gold or silver coin, or *being so formed that it can by gilding, silvering, coloring, [*413 washing, or other like process to be dealt with as to resemble any of the queen's current gold and silver coin, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on being convicted shall be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one year, with or without hard labor."

Proof of counterfeiting. It is apprehended that, notwithstanding the provision in s. 30, supra, there must still 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 R. v. Harris, 1 Lea, 135, 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 counter

feiting. See also R. v. Varley, 1 Leach, 76; 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 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. R. v. Welsh, 1 East, P. C. 164; 1 Leach, 293; R. v. Wilson, 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. In R. v. Hermann, 4 Q. B. D. 284; 48 L. J., M. C. 106; the Court of Crown Cases Reserved were divided in opinion as to whether a genuine sovereign which had been fraudulently filed at the edges to such an extent as to reduce its weight by one twenty-fourth part, and a new milling added to restore the appearance of the coin, was false and counterfeit within the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 9. Lord Coleridge, C. J., Pollock and Huddleston, BB., being of opinion that it was false and counterfeit. Lush, J., and Stephen, J., being of the contrary opinion.

Where the prisoner was indicted for uttering a medal resembling a half-sovereign in size, figure, and color, it was shown that the medal was of the same diameter, and similar in color; that the guerling was round and not square; that the stamp of the head of the queen was similar to that on a half-sovereign; but that the legend was different. No evidence was given of the impression upon the reverse side of the medal, the medal being lost during the examination of the witnesses; and it was held that there was sufficient evidence that the medal resembled a half-sovereign_in "size, figure, and color." R. v. Robinson, 1 L. & C. 604; 34 L. J., M. C. 176. It was to meet this and other similar cases that the above statute, 46 & 47 Vict. c. 45, was passed.

What is current coin may be proved by evidence of common usage or reputation; 1 Hale, P. C. 213.

Proof of uttering. Upon an indictment for the simple offence of *uttering, the prosecutor must prove the act of uttering, etc., *414] as charged, that the money was counterfeit, and that the prisoner knew it to be such. The practice of "ringing the changes was held to be an offence under the repealed statute, 15 Geo. 2, c. 28; R. v. Frank, 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. 97.

Where several persons are charged with an uttering, it must appear 1 Case of Quin et al., 6 Rog. Rec. 63. S.

either that they were all present, or so near to the party actually uttering as to be able to afford him aid and assistance. 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 in 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. R. v. Soares, Russ. & Ry. 25; 2 East, P. C. 974. The two prisoners were charged with uttering a forged note. It appeared that they came together to 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. R. v. Davis, Russ. & Ry. 113.

It has been held that 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. R. v. Manners, 7 C. & P. 801, 32 E. C. L. But it was held by Erskine, J., that if two persons, having jointly prepared counterfeit coin, plan the uttering, and go on a joint expedition, and utter in concert and by previous arrangement the different pieces of coin, then the act of one would be the act of both, though they might not be proved to be actually together at each uttering. R. v. Hurse, 2 Moo. & R. 360. Acc. R. v. Greenwood, 2 Den. C. C. R. 453; 21 L. J., M. C. 127; R. v. Skerrit, infra.

The giving of a piece of counterfeit coin in charity was held not an uttering within the statute, although the person might know it to be counterfeit, for there must be some intention to defraud. R. v. Page, 8 C. & P. 122, 34 E. C. L. See 1 Russ. Cri. 232 (z), 5th ed., note by Greaves, where the correctness of this decision is doubted. The ruling in R. v. Page has also been thought questionable by Denman, C. J., and Coltman, J., in a trial at the Central Criminal Court, in which it was held that if a person gave a counterfeit coin to a woman with whom he had shortly before had intercourse, it was an uttering within the repealed statute 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 34, s. 7; Anon., 1 Cox, C. C. 250. "To utter and put off" a thing is to "offer it, whether taken or not." Per Jervis, C. J., in R. v. Welch, 20 L. J. M. C. 101. As to a joint uttering by a husband and wife, see post, tit. "Coercion by Husband."

As to uttering in forgery, see post, title "Forgery."

*Proof of possession of counterfeit coin.

It is a very [*415

frequent question, what amounts to the possession of counterfeit coin, both as aggravating the uttering and as itself a substantive offence.

The following cases have been decided on this point. Having a large quantity of counterfeit coin in possession, many of each sort being of the same date, and made in the same mould, and each piece being wrapped in a separate piece of paper, and the whole distributed in different pockets of the dress, is some evidence that the possessor knew that the coin was counterfeit and intended to utter it. R. v. Jarvis, 25 L. J., M. C. 30. In the following case, two persons were convicted of a joint uttering, having another counterfeit shilling in their possession, although the latter coin was found upon the person of one of them only. It appeared that one of the prisoners went into a shop and there purchased a loaf, for which she tendered a counterfeit shilling in payment. She was secured, but no more counterfeit money was found upon her. The other prisoner who had come with her, and was waiting at the shop-door, then ran away, but was immediately secured, and fourteen bad shillings were found upon her, wrapped in gauze paper. It was objected, that the complete offence stated in the indictment was not proved against either of the prisoners; Garrow, B., was of opinion, that the prisoners coming together to the shop, and the one staying outside, they must both be taken to be jointly guilty of the uttering, and that it was for the jury to say whether the possession of the remaining pieces of bad money was not joint. The jury found both the prisoners guilty. R. v. Skerrit, 2 C. & P. 427, 12 E. C. L. The prisoner was indicted for having in his possession three or more pieces of counterfeit coin. The prisoner was taken in company with a man named Large. On their being searched, only two bad shillings were found on the former, but upon Large were found sixteen bad shillings. The jury found that the prisoner knew that Large had the sixteen bad shillings in his possession; that he knew that all the shillings found on Large and himself were counterfeit, and that both parties had the common purpose of uttering them. Alderson, B., thereupon directed the jury, that the possession of Large was the possession of the prisoner; and if so, that the latter had three or more counterfeit pieces in his possession, although only two were found upon him. The prisoner being convicted, the learned judge reserved the point for the consideration of the judges, thinking that a difficulty arose out of the interpretation clause, which seemed to confine the possession to the personal custody or possession of the party accused. On the case being argued before the judges, they were divided in opinion; but a majority held that the possession of Large was the possession of the prisoner, and that the latter was properly convicted. R. v. Rogers, 2 M. C. C. 85; 2 Lewin, C. C. 119, 297. So where one of two persons in company utters counterfeit coin, and other counterfeit coin is found on the other person, they are jointly guilty of the aggravated offence, of acting in concert, and both knowing of the possession. R. v. Gerrish and Brown, 2 Moo. & R. 219. See, also, R. v. Williams, Carr. & M. 259, 41 E. C. L. See now the interpretation clause of the act, ante, p. 404.

1 Having in possession instruments for coining, with an intent to counterfeit money, is a misdemeanor at common law. Murphy's Case, 4 Rog. Rec. 42; Dorsett's Case, 3

The guilty knowledge will be proved in the same manner as under an indictment for uttering false coin, ante, p. 95.

Proceedings for twice uttering. If it is intended to punish the prisoner as for twice uttering, under s. 10, he must be specially *indicted; for upon the corresponding clause of the repealed statute, 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 34, s. 7, where a prisoner was con- [*416 victed under the first part of the above section, of two single 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. R. v. Robinson, 1 Moo. C. C. 413.

Proceedings after a previous conviction. By sect. 37 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, where any person shall have been convicted of any of fence against this act, or any former act relating to the coin, and shall afterwards be indicted for any offence against this act, committed subsequent to such conviction, it shall be sufficient in any such indictment, after charging such subsequent offence, to state the substance and effect only (omitting the formal part) of the indictment and conviction for the previous offence; and a certificate containing the substance and effect only (omitting the formal part) of the indictment and conviction for the previous offence, purporting to be signed by the clerk of the court or other officer having or purporting to have the custody of the records of the court where the offender was first convicted, or by the deputy of such clerk or officer, shall, upon proof of the identity of the person of the offender, be sufficient evidence of the previous conviction, without proof of the signature or official character or authority of the person appearing to have signed the same, or of his custody or right to the custody of the records of the court, and for every such certificate a fee of six shillings and eightpence, and no more, shall be demanded or taken; and the proceedings upon any indictment for committing any offence after a previous conviction or convictions shall be as follows: (that is to say) the offender shall, in the first instance, be arraigned upon so much only of the indictment as charges the subsequent offence, and if he plead not guilty, or if the court order a plea of not guilty to be entered on his behalf, the jury shall be charged, in the first instance, to inquire concerning such subsequent offence only; and if they find him guilty, or if on arraignment he plead guilty, he shall then, and not before, be asked whether he had been previously convicted as alleged in the indictment, and if he answer that he had been so previously convicted, the court may proceed to sentence him accordingly; Id. 77. An averment that the defendant secretly kept instruments for counterfeiting, sufficiently avers a scienter. Sutton r. State, 9 9. 133. On an indictment for counterfeiting coin, the criminal participation of the defendant may be inferred by the jury from the fact that a large quantity of spurious coin, and various instruments and appliances for coining, were found in his possession, unless such possession be satisfactorily explained by him. United States v. Burns, 5 McL. 23; United States v. King, Id. 208. S.