Case ID: yeates_1/html/0400-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "M’Kean C. J. Yeates J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Respublica against Thomas Weight.
    On an indictment for uttering and publishing a forged deed, knowing the same to be forged, the party injured is a competent witness.
    The defendant was indicted for a misdemeanor in publishing and uttering a certain forged indenture between Daniel Thomas and himself, dated 5th February 1783; the words, “but interest to be paid from the 1st April next,” being therein erased, he knowing the same to be so forged and erased, with intent to defraud the said Thomas of 61. 10s. Vid. x Stra. 19.
    An agreement had been made and' executed between the said Thomas and the defendant, for the sale of about 30 acres of land. The purchase money was to be paid by instalments, with interest' on the first payment from the 1st April 1783. These words were erased in the agreement.
    
      Daniel Thomas was offered as a witness, but excepted to by the defendant, on the authority of 3 Haw. P. C. 433, § 24.
    Mr. T. Ross, pro repub. Mr. Murray, pro def.
    
   M’Kean C. J.

He is a competent witness; and though in the case of Dr. Dodd, a release was produced from Mr. Fletcher, (the supposed obligee of the bond,) to Eord Chesterfield, (the supposed obligor,) before his lordship was offered as a witness on the indictment for the forgery, yet this was only a prudential step in the king’s counsel to' avoid all dispute. How, if the law was otherwise, could there be any convictions for forgery? [Vid. Reach’s Crown Cases, 163. 4 Burr. 2352. Dall, in.]

Yeates J.

I am not without doubts, as to the competency of the party injured on an indictment for forgery. * The general current of the authorities, as far as I can recollect, is against it; though the line between the competency and credibility of witnesses is now much better established, than formerly. [Vid. 2 Stra. 728. Hardr. 331. Reach, 10, 25, 289.] *4021 * But ^ie defendant here, is not indicted for a forgery, -* but for uttering and publishing the instrument, knowing it to be forged and erased. The defendant’s knowledge of the fact, therefore, and the subsequent publication, form the gist of the present charge; and I am of opinion the witness may legally be received on this indictment. [Sed vid. Hardr. 331.]

The witness was affirmed to give evidence to the jury; and the defendant was convicted on clear and satisfactory proof.