Case ID: mass_22/html/0279-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth versus David Parmenter.
    Indictment for forging a promissory note according to the “purport and effect following, I promise” 8fc, instead of I promised» Hdd an immaterial variance. The fact of forging a note within a county cannot be inferred from its having been uttered therein.
    Indictment for forging a promissory note according to the “ purport and effect following, &c., I promise ” &c. The evidence was of a note written, I promised &c., and this was < i, cted to, at the trial, as a variance ; but the objection was overruled.
    It was also objected that there was no proof that the forgery was committed within the county of Worcester, or even witnm the commonwealth, the note bearing date Providence, 7th August, 1825, and there being no evidence of the fact, other than that the note was uttered in Worcester in January 1827. But the jury were instructed that they might infer the fact of forgery within the county, from the fact of the note’s having been uttered therein.
    If this direction was wrong, or if the variance above men tioned was material, the verdict was to be set aside.
    
      Goodwin and Allen, for the defendant,
    referred, on the point of variance, to 2 Russell on Crimes, 1481, 1482, and the authorities there cited ; and on the other point, to the same book, p. 1499.
    
      Davis (Sol. Gen.) for the commonwealth.
   Per Curiam.

As the indictment sets out the note accord"ng to its purport and effect, and not according to its tenor, we think the variance is not material. I promised would be construed to mean I promise

But it was not sufficiently proved that the offence was committed in the county of Worcester. The evidence was only that the note was here uttered. It is clear from authority, that the offence of forging in the county cannot be inferred from the fact of uttering and publishing in the county. 
      
       See 3 Chitty on Crim. Law, (3d Amer. ed.) 1039, 1040, and notes.
     
      
       See 1 Chitty on Crim. Law, (3d Amer. ed.) 190; 3 id. 1039, and notes 
        United States v. Britton, 2 Mason, 464; Spencer v. Commonwealth, 2 Leigh, 751; 2 Russell on Crimes, (3d Amer. ed.) 371 to 374.