Case ID: dc_2/html/0068-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Coubt", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

United States v. Walter Wright.
    Possession of forged bank-notes, with intent to utter them as true, is not an indictable offence.
    Indictment for knowingly having in his possession forged bank-notes with intent to utter them as true.
    
      Mr. Wallach and Mr. Law, for the defendant,
    moved the Court to quash the indictment; because,
    1. It is only an intent to commit a crime, which intent is not indictable. The King v. Higgins, 2 East, 5; 4 Bl. Com. 21; Stat. 41 Geo. 3, e. 39; East, <C. L. 881.
    2. It does not charge an unlawful intent to injure any person. Nothing can be inferred. At common law it is no crime simply to make a false bank-note unless some person be injured. 1 Hawk. e. 70, § 11; Rex v. Wheatley, 2 Burr. 1127 ; Rex v. Munoz, 2 Str. 1127.
    
      3. It does not set forth the notes in hcec verba. Mason’s case, East, C. L. 975 ; Commonwealth v. Morse, 2 Mass. 137.
    
      Mr. Jones, contra.
    
    An inchoate act towards the consummation of a crime is indictable. The King v. Higgins, 2 East’s Rep. 5. There is a form of such an indictment in Crown Circuit Companion, p. 286, for having counterfeit money in his possession with intent to utter it. This Court in the case of The United States v. Ray Sf Williams, (1 Cranch, C. C. 178,) decided that in an indictment' for forgery, it is not necessary to set forth the forged instrument in hcec verba.
    
   The Coubt

having some doubt, refused to quash the indictment ; but after verdict, arrested the judgment.