Case ID: add_1/html/0044-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "President.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
    December Term, 1792.
    Pennsylvania v. Henry Misner.
    
      MISNER was indicted—1. For forging an assignment to William, Irwin, of a bill given by Misner himself and James Read, to Eneas Randall.
    
    2. For uttering this assignment, knowing it to be forged.
    The evidence was that Misner having in his possession a single bill on himself and Read, assigned it, in Randall’s name, for goods, to Irwin, who knew neither of them, and supposed him to be Randall Irwin sued Read before a justice, and recovered, on this bill. It was also proved, that an order drawn by James Read, in favour of Henry Misner, for nearly the same sum, on James O’Hara, had been presented and paid.
    
      Brackenridge, for the defendant,
    contended that there was no forgery, for the following reasons.
    1. The name of the payee, in the body of the bill, is Enos Randole, and the name subscribed to the assignment is Enos Randell.
    
    2. There being no seal to the assignment, no property in the bill is assigned, and no person could be injured.
    3. Misner is a co-obligor in the bill, and only a surety. He paid it; and had a right to assign it, so as to recover from Read, the real debtor : assigning a note on himself is equivalent to giving a new note, which he might do.
    4. Misner being in possession of the note, he must be supposed to have authority to dispose of it.
    2 Salk. 660. Cowp. 220.
   President.

1. There is no evidence in what manner the person named Enos Randole in the body of the bill, who is the payee, really writes his name, for there is no evidence, that the bill was written by him. But if there were, the variance is so inconsiderable, that if the defendant were to escape under it, any man might accomplish all the dangerous effects of forgery, without risking the punishment. The variance makes not another name, but the same, for all purposes of deception.

2. It is equally criminal to forge a name, as to forge a seal, if there be an intention and possibility to defraud. The name, without a seal, gives authority to demand, sue for, and receive, the money ; and, therefore, gives a full possibility of defrauding.

3. James Read is also obligor, liable to pay the whole money, and, in fact, has been compelled to pay it, by a competent authority. Misner’s being an obligor gave him no right to use the name of Randall and make a note on him.

4. The defendant’s having the bill in his possession is presumption of authority over it, and (if no obligation to pay remained on him, but did on Read) may reduce the transaction to an act of indiscretion, of a dangerous kind indeed to indulge, but not punishable as a forgery. The case then is brought to this point:—Did the defendant assign this bill, with intent to defraud ? That depends on this had Read paid it before? Of this there is presumption, arising from the payment by O’Hara, on Read's order, of nearly the same to Misner. You must determine the fact from the circumstances.

The jury acquitted him.