Case ID: mass_10/html/0189-01.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 Dalton Stevens.
    On an indictment for altering an order in writing for money payable to the defendant, the evidence was his confession that another did it, the defendant knowing and assenting to it; and it was held sufficient to warrant a conviction.
    The prisoner was indicted for altering an order drawn by one Sturtevant on one Rufus Page in favor of Stevens, the original order being for five dollars, and altered to fifteen dollars. There was a second count for uttering and publishing the order thus altered; but the attorney-general had entered a nolle prosequi to this last count during the trial.
    Trial was had at this term, before Sewall, J.
    The evidence in support of the first count in the indictment was1 the testimony of Sturtevant, who swore that he gave the prisoner the order for five dollars, and that it had been altered. Jonathan Currier testified that the prisoner, in a conversation with him, said that the alteration was made by one Palmer, but that he, the prisoner, was knowing and assenting to it, and that he had been led to the commission of this and many other crimes by Palmer.
    
    Upon this evidence the prisoner being found guilty, Wilde, on his part, moved for a new trial, as on a verdict against evidence. The confession of the defendant, as it was introduced by the government, must be taken as true. Then he neither altered the order, nor caused or procured it to be altered. If he is chargeable upon this evidence with any crime, it must be with aiding or assisting, in the words of the statute,  upon which the indictment is grounded.
    
      
      * Morton, (Attorney-General.)
    This is but a misdemeanor, in which there are no accessaries. All who are present, aiding and assisting, or consenting, are principal offenders. 
    
    
      
      
        Stat. 1804, c. 20, § 1
    
    
      
       2 East’s C. L. 973. —3 Inst. 169. —1 H. R. P. C. 684.
    
   Per Curiam.

It is true that the prisoner’s confession must be taken together, and it must also be taken as true. From that confession it must be considered as proved, that he was present and assenting; and, since he alone was to derive benefit from the act, the jury were justified in inferring that he procured it to be done. The evidence was quite sufficient to satisfy the jury that the prisoner committed the crime, either with his own hand, or by the hand of another; and there is no ground for setting aside their verdict.

The motion for a new trial was overruled.

ADDITIONAL NOTE.

[See Cayford’s case, 7 Greenl. 57__Vance vs. Vance, 8 Greenl. 132. — Ham & ease, 2 Fairf. 391. — F. H.]