Case ID: dc_4/html/0476-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

United States v. John Anderson.
    Upon an indictment for forgery, a person interested in setting aside the instrument forged, is not a competent witness to prove the forgery.
    Indictment for forging an order in the name of Mr. Dorsey, who was called as a witness for the United States.
    
      Mr. Brent, for the defendant,
    objects, and contends that no
    person, interested in setting aside the instrument, is competent as a witness, to prove the forgery. 2 Russell, 374; 4 Starkie, 573, 582, 583. In those States where a contrary doctrine prevails, it is by statute; and in England there is a late statute, 9 Geo. 4, c. 32, permitting such testimony; which statute would have been unnecessary if it could be permitted by the common law. Ross’s case, 2 Dali. 239; Keating’s case, 1 Id. 110; 10 Petersdorff, 70.
    The Court (hesitans,) rejected the witness.
    
      Mr. Key, for the United States,
    offered again to examine Mr. Dorsey, upon a collateral question, and contended that he was competent to prove any fact except that the signature is not his. Rex v. Boston, 4 East, 582.
   The Court

(nem. con.') still rejected the testimony of Mr. Dorsey, because he was offered to prove a fact tending to prove the forgery.

See Porter’s case, in this Court, in 1812, (2 Cranch, C. C. 60,) where Jenkins, the person cheated, was examined as a witness for the prosecution. 2 Hawk. 433; 1 Raym. 396; Rex v. Whiting, M’Nally, 105, 124; Maxwell’s case, in this Court, (1 Cranch, C. C. 605;) Peake’s Ev. 94; Abrahams v. Bunn, 4 Burr. 2255; Smith v. Prager, 7 T. R. 60; Bent v. Baker, 3 Id. 27; Resp v. Ross, 2 Dall. 239. See Hardres, 331; 1 Salk. 283, 286; Str. 728, 1043; 1 Vent. 49; 2 Hawk. c. 46, §§ 24, 25; Str. 1229; M’Nally, 121; Peake, L. E. 96, 116; 4 Starkie, 770, 771; and the following cases in this Court: United States v. Suter, November, 1807; Bayne’s case, December, 1830; Brown’s case, December, 1827, (3 Cranch, C. C. 268;) Bates’s case, April, 1823, 2 Id. 405, and June, 1810; Moxley’s case, December, 1812. Id. 64.