New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-08-20
THE WHEELOCK CASE.

Tho question to be tried at Bow Street Lon
don, as to the extradition of Wheel0cl involves
several legal points not altogether clear
1t may be assumed that the claim for his
eXtradition will rest on che ground Of
forgery or uttering forged paper. But al
though the crime was committed on American
soil, it seems that the English dcGni-
ton of what is or is not forgery will
prevail in deciding the question whether or not
Wheelocll's crime is within the four corners
of the treaty.
1t has been laid down in the various cases
that have been contested before the courts
that States entering into treaties of this
character retain the right of defining the
meaning of the terms by which they are
bound The British Extradition act of 1870
in its first schedule enacts that "the following
" list Of crimes is to be construed according to
" the law existing IN England or in British
" Possession, at the date of the alleged crime
g whether by common law or statute, made
" before or after the passing of this actD
Among these crimes we find " forgery. coun-
% terfeitng and altering and utterng what is
forged or counterfeited or altered" In
the case Of Charles Windsor, who alb
seconded to England, having robbed the
Mercantile Bank of New-York, it was
proved that he had been guilty OF making false
entries in the books of the bank The New
York Forgery act of 1922 provides that any
person making false entries in tho books of
any moncYed institution shall be held to be
guilty of forgery. The case came mp before
the English courts, and Lord Cockburn held
that the act, not being forgery by the laws of
both countries, could not be included under the
treaty of extradition.
What then is or is not forgery by English
law becomes an important query in this case.
1t will be recollected that Whcelock, as conf
Dental clerk to the prosecutors, was intrusted
with signed checks for the purposes of the
firm that he betrayed his trust by filling
up these checks for various amounts, with
the proceeds of which, either in cash or
circular notes, be fled. There was no
Stimulating of the firms signature, nor were
the checks altered except by filing in the
amount left blank. To ill in a blank check
already signed is not forgery by the English
law, if the person filing in the same has
general authority TO do so. SO far as 1T is pos
sible to trace the principles which lave guided
the English Bench, it seems that where mn
act is not forgery ut the time it was COM
mited, it cannot become so by the subsequent
misrepresentation of the money. If Wheciocil
had drawn tie money on any of these checks
and paid it away in the ordinary course of
business there would have been no miscop-
duct in the matter. His crime was the su0se-
quent misrepresentation, although he might
have had the intention to misapproprate at
the time he filled up the checks. But there are
cases which go To show that if an agent
having authority TO fill in blank checks for
specified purposes and amounts exceeds that
authority, the act is forgery. In this ease, in
ono instance, he got the check certified aud
pail it away direct for a letter of credit This
is n act clearly in excess of his authority, and
that excess by the law of England would
seem from recent decisions to constitute for
gerry. The lawyers will, no doubt, have fine
innings, and the exact boundary between em-
bezzlement and forgery will have to be defined