Case ID: f-cas_25/html/0684-01.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

Case No. 14,884.
    UNITED STATES v. CRANDELL.
    [2 Cranch, C. C. 373.]
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    April Term, 1823.
    Witness—Interest—Indictment tor Foroery.
    The person intended to be injured by a forgery, and the person whose name is forged to a certificate, are competent witnesses to prove the forgery. But, if- the witness has paid monéy upon the forged paper, he is not competent to prove {he forgery.
    There were three indictments against the defendant [William Crandell] for forgery. In one he was charged with forging a certificate purporting to be signed by one Henry Naylor with intent to defraud one Holmead.
    Mr. Key, for defendant,
    objected to Naylor and Holmead as witnesses for the prosecution.
    
      
       [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]
    
   THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge,

absent) overruled the objection. Upon another indictment against him for forgery, a witness was sworn who had paid five dollars upon the forged paper. THE COURT instructed the jury that he was not a competent witness (CRANCH, Chief Judge, doubting). Upon a third indictment for forging the name of G. Bomford to a bond, with intent to injure one Diggesi Mr. Key, for defendant, objected to Digges as a witness, but the objection was overruled by THE COURT.