[fraud, passing bill of exchange – bills of exchange, fraudulent]

R. v. Savery

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Montagu J., 28 October 1840

Source: Hobart Town Courier, 30 October 1840[1]

Before His Honor Mr. Justice Montagu and a Military Jury.

            Henry Savery was charged with passing a bill of exchange amounting to £49 3s., with the intention of defrauding Mr. Richard Cook.

The Solicitor-General briefly addressed the jury, stating that the case was very simple, and that he would go into it without making any further observation.

Richard Cook stated, that he knew the prisoner, and had seen his hand-writing; that on the 21st August last he received a letter from him by post, enclosing a bill to be discounted; a few days after the prisoner came to town and called upon him, when he informed him that he could not send the amount of the bill to him, as the one pound notes would be too large to forward in a letter. Witness discounted the bill, and handed him the amount, deducting £2 12s. for discount, - the bill is in the same state as when he received it, with the exception of the letters J. B. upon it.

            On his cross-examination the witness stated his belief that the bill was in the hand-writing of the prisoner, with the exception of the acceptor’s name.

Mr. Josiah Austin examined, stated that Savery lived in August at Hestercombe; that his brother’s name is Solomon Austin; he is now in England, and neither of them had any transactions with prisoner; knows of no person of his or his brother’s name in his neighbourhood, and the acceptance on the bill was not written by either; he never saw the bill until it was shown him at the police-office.

Mr. Stephen for the defence, stated that there was not any intent to defraud, inasmuch as the bill was not due until next month. His Honor overruled this statement; if the jury believed Mr. Cook, the prisoner attempted to defraud him, and did so, by presenting the bill as a good one. The learned Judge made a brief charge to the jury, who immediately found the prisoner guilty.

His Honor in passing sentence, said it was impossible to pass a lenient one on the prisoner, who had been more than once tried here for the same offence; he had been sent from home for the same, and he should feel it his duty to point out to the Lieutenant-Governor, the propriety of not allowing the prisoner to return to the settled districts of this country.

The sentence was, that the prisoner should be transported beyond the seas for the term of his natural life.