Delivering the Judgment of the Full Court, Judge Lindsett said: "The Court' is of opinion that this appeal must be allowed. The apyellant was convicted under Section of the Forgery Act, 1913, for that he on the September 19," 1035, at Kulangsu, Amoy, without lawful auc thority or excuse had -in his. possession a forged bank note knowing the same. to be forged; and he was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour. In the view Of the Court each of the two bank Roles with Identical numbers, bel Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7, was proved al the trial to be a forged bank note within the meaning of the Act. Fur ther, there was sich evidence that the appellant had these we bank notes in his possession as the jury might reasonably have believed. There was nol, however, suMicient evidence justifying a finding that the appellant must-have known that either of the two notes was forged. The prosecution sought to establish the fact of such knowledge by in-traducing evidence-of the finding in the possession of another person, who was sharing the appellant's bedroom at the time, of five other bank notes including the pair of notes with identical numbers. Had! the appellant been charged with conspiring with this other person to @efraud by means of the use of duplicate notes, this evidence _might Well have been admissible; but it was admissible here, in the absence of any evidence that the appellant knew of the existence of the other five notes, to show knowledge in him Of the falsity of Exhibit No. 8 or No. 7. The conviction must therefore hho quashed and the appellant discharged.
Judge Mossop thanked Mr. R. G. MeDonald for having conducted the appeal on behalf of the appellant.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.