On his cross-examination, he stated that the word "schein" signified either "note" or "receipt," and did not of itself import a promise to pay; and that in the German language, he should call a promissory note, or an undertaking to pay money, "schuld schein," which means "receipt for a debt." He also said that the words "Realisations comptoir," although printed in the French character, were adopted in the German language.

It was also proved by the Inspector of Police at Berlin, that instruments, or notes of this description, were issued by the Prussian government in 1805, as representing in value one dollar of the currency of that country; that the name subscribed to them was a fac simile of the signature of the Baron d'Altenstein, who, at the period they were issued, was the Prussian Minister of Finance; that they are now not only received by the Prussian government in payment of all taxes, but that any holder may receive cash for them, on presenting them at the treasury offices established at Berlin, Koningsberg, and Breslau; and that they form part of the circulating medium of the kingdom of Prussia, and pass as current money there for all purposes whatever. He also proved that the instrument on which the prisoner was indicted, was forged.

At the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, Mr. Platt, for the prisoner, submitted that neither of the counts in the indictment could be supported, as the instrument was stated throughout to be a promissory note, or undertaking, or order to pay money; whereas, from the evidence of the interpreter, it appeared that it was neither the one nor the other, as the word "schein” was not in strictness a promissory note, nor did it purport to be such, nor did it of itself

1822.

THE KING

v.

GOLDSTEIN.

1822.

THE KING

V.

GOLDSTEIN.

import any promise or undertaking to pay. The statute
7 Geo. 2. c. 22. makes it felony to forge any warrant
or order for payment of money, or delivery of goods;
and it has been decided, that if the warrant or order
mentioned in that statute does not purport on the face of
it, or be shewn to be made by one having authority
to command the payment of money, and to be com-
pulsory on the person having possession of the subject
matter of it, it is not a warrant or order within that sta-
tute. Rer v. Mary Mitchell (a). Rex v. Williams (b).
Rex v. Clinch (c); and Rex v. Jones (d). The intention
of the legislature in passing the statute 43 Geo. 3. c. 139,
was to afford protection to a particular description
of instruments; and even if the note or order in ques-
tion could be considered as a receipt for money within
the statute 2 Geo. 2. c. 25, yet in the case of Rer v.
Hunter (e), it was decided, that the name of the holder
of a navy bill, signed on a proper receipt stamp, and
affixed to the bill, did not on the face of it, purport
to be a receipt for money within that statute; be-
cause the mere signing such name, unless connected
with the previous matter, does not necessarily pur
port on the face of the instrument, to be a receipt ;
but it should be averred in the indictment, that such
navy bill, together with such signature, did purport
to be, and was a receipt; and that the prisoner felo
niously forged the same. So in Thompson's Case (f),
it was determined that an indictment for forging the
word "settled" at the bottom of a bill of parcels, im-
porting that the bill had been paid, must shew by
proper averments, that it is a receipt, although the

(a) Foster, 119. S. C. 2 East's Pl. Cr. 936.937. S. C. 1 Leach's Cr. Ca. 4th ed. 114.

938.

S. C. 2 Leach's Cr. Ca. 540.

-(6) 2 East's Pl. Cr.

(c) 2 East's Pl. Cr. (d) 2 East's Pl. Cr. 941.

S. C. 1 Leach's Cr. Ca. 53.- -(e) 2 East's Pl. Cr. 928. S. C. 2 Leach's
Cr. Ca. 624.-

·(ƒ) 2 Leach's Cr. Ca. 910. S. C. Id, 632, n.

35 Geo. 3. c. 55. enacts, that such a memorandum shall be deemed and taken to be a receipt.

The learned Judge overruled the objection; being of opinion that the statute 43 Geo. 3. having been passed for the purpose of preventing the forgery of foreign securities in this country, it was not necessary that such securities should possess the strict technicalities required by our law; but that it was sufficient, to bring them within the act, if they imported on the face of them, to be undertakings or orders for the payment of money; that it must be inferred, from the terms of the instrument in question, that the Prussian government would pay the sum therein stated, on its being presented at the treasury offices for that purpose; and that it appeared to be connected with that government by the crown and initials on the reverse side. Besides, it was most satisfactorily proved, that it operated as an undertaking or order for the payment of money; and the indictment charged the prisoner with forging it, purporting it to be the undertaking or order of the King of Prussia, or his minister; and the word “ purporting," in the statute 43 Geo. 3, seems rather to apply to the person by or on whose behalf the instrument is issued, than to the form of the instrument itself.

The jury found the prisoner guilty,

On his being brought into Court on the following day to receive judgment, Mr. Platt moved that it might be arrested, on the ground that no count in the indictment stated the tenor of the instrument with sufficient certainty; that it was necessary either that it should have been translated, or at least explained by averments on the record. He submitted that it was an undisputed axiom in all cases of forgery, that it was

1822.

THE KING

v.

GOLDSTEIN.

1822.

THE KING

v.

not only necessary to charge the forgery of a note or bill, but it was also requisite that the instrument GOLDSTEIN. alleged to be forged, should appear on the face of the indictment, that the Court might be satisfied that such instrument was actually such as it was imputed to be: that in point of law there was no distinction between the instrument in question, and one written in the Arabic or Chinese language; and a Court of law cannot take judicial notice of any foreign instrument, unless it be translated, or explained by averments on the face of the record. The statute under which the prisoner was convicted, applied only to instruments payable in money. How can the Court say, on looking at the instrument in its present form, that it purported to be an order for the payment of money? In the case of a libel, it is necessary not only to submit a copy of the original, if it be written in a foreign language, but also to set out a translation on the record, for the information of the Court; for in Zenobio v. Axtell (a), it was held, that in an action for a libel published in a foreign language, it must be set forth in the original, and a translation only is insufficient; and the same rule holds e conversô. At all events, it was necessary in this case to set forth and explain the tenor of the instrument, which has not been done, as it was merely set out in a foreign or unknown language. In Rex v. Lyon (b), it was held, that in every indictment for forgery, the instrument charged to be forged must be set out, according to its tenor, in order that the Court may see that it is the instrument which it purports by its tenor to be; and that it is one of those instruments, the falsely making or knowingly uttering of which, the law has said shall be considered

(a) 6 Term Rep. 162.- •(b) East's Pl. Cr. 933. S. C. 2 Leach's Cr. Ca. 597. S. P. Mason's Case, 2 East's Pl. Cr. 975.