The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-27

cha~ceI,v.Ss difr'Sf cou-. r.AeUnitei;S'atcc,
now fitting in this .own. - =
| About twelve moT:ths ago. william Acorn
and him were both arrefed in !.cx;ngson for the
above Offence, and brough. before TIRE honoura-
Die Judge Jones, who :n,a;ntcd 7 tpscialterr,
in September Ian for their tria'. Irving. gave
bail for his appearance. and Acoru was commit
ted for the want hail. The court in proit-
cntion aGainft Coomhs. fone time ago for s.
niar ofsnc., Judged that the tefimony, Of per
ions converfsn. with bark rn.es, was ncoupe-
tent to prove the forgery, but that the clerk &C
the bank was the proper witneis; the attorney
Cor .he 6itrtt fent Forward ard procured the at
tendance of clerk from Philadelphia Mt the
ifpecia! term. Irwin failed TO appear. Acorn
was tried, and upor objection by bis couni-l to
the teciriony nit he clerk, the court adpdged
that he was incompetent to prove n" forgery in
the p etdcni and Gathers ignature but might
prove the forgery in any other part of the bill.
This was done, aud hlcorn was found guilty and
ftneeEced to the peniten.iary.
Irvir's bail purified him to Georgia, and bro't
him ZIP 10 the November term; he gave fickneis
as execute TO ;he cour. FOR his non-appe2rance at
September. and was 'bailed to March term; bnt
again failed to appear, and being again purified
bv his hail, was hroneh: up to the frft day of
the preftnt July term, md expreiTtd great ankle
~ for his trial-The Federal attorney was not
ready for want of the clerk from the bank: but
TO remove that impeachment the council for Irwin.
entered IN the record the following agreement
&c I, is agreed and admitted, by the faid Irwin,
that the attorney for the United States may on
the faid Twins trial produce any wilneiits whom
he may ftie6t, 70 prove the notes in the indiet-
ment mentioned. TO he faiie, forged and coun-
terfeit notes; and Che fad attorney iliall up
on the trial be required 20 produce any officers
Of the bank in the ndi6t rent mentioned, TO give
evidence of the forgery a'!edged; and that
Thuriday the 10th day of the prsfent term be
fixed for the trial of the faid IRWIN
On Thurfday the 10th inf. the trial COM
menccd. The Federal Attorney proved the
pailing of the notes in the indictment charged
to three tevcrai perfons. He the" produced fe-
veral officers of the Lexington Bank and feveral
OF the moi eminent merchants, who all depoied
that they had been, and were IN the habit of re-
ceiving finch notes, and that tsie were forged
and being required to give their reafuns for fuch
aiertions went on TO point them out in the cop
perpiate, as we'll as the mauufcript part of the
notes. They were ali very politive as to the
notes being forged. One merchant had fsrn the
PRECEDENT and GATHER actually Egn in AuguR
iatt, and averred thefe fgnatnres in the queaion
TO be forged. The attorney then went on 10
prove Ivin's having in poifrfiipn Other forged
notes, and having offered forged notes TO others
before he pa(ied .hof., in cueRior unon the
third day OF the examination, the council for
the prloner, moved TO reject the latter drfcro-
ton OF teftimony, bccauie it referred to other
notes than thofe mentioned in :he ind stmcnt-
the Judge took time till Monday, and then adj
judged that the tehimony Gould 90 20 The iury
| 10 prove fcloni"us intention.--When the exam
! nation Of teitiinony on both 6des was gone
through, the priioners copnGl moved the court
to reject all the tettinony given TO prove the
ha, IN. I,.l ,L,t
i the Protecptor G,ou'd have ftnt forward A man
! with the notes 70 the bank, to compare the
notes with the regiiler, which would prove whe-
ther any tuch notes had ifiucd from the bank or
not !; that the agreement only Gilpen!ed with
! one KIND OF teftimoUy, but that the next ben
! thouid ai,l be had. The attorney urpeti the ar
gument which veaed him with power to fvIe6t
: the w,tnefieS, and conlid-ring the time when il
was made, and the circu'nft ances of the parties
1T would he abturd TO fnppof- a-Y other mean
ing given TO it th1n that ,,nier which he had act
ed, and any other would make it mere decep-
| tion, as f1Ch mef1epcer could not have been
irnt to the bank, and if h could, Ghch III 'fcul-
ty would be greater than bringirg clerk here
! neither would fuch teftiirony br LEGAL when
/ brought. The court decided that the teftimony
which had been ad!uced ffould he rejected =
nat although the argument LETT il TO the profe-
cutor TO feled witnei,s vet thcv muft he. Iepa
when brought, and that the argument only diff
penfed with one kind of evidence, but the next
bet ihould be adduced, which was that of man
who had compared the notes with tie reciaer of
the bank.-T'he attorney, Therefore, offered the
Certificate of the caihier of the Bank, that the
Bills had been compared with the Regfter, and
that none offuch dates and numbers were iIued
from the bank; and offered 70 yive teftimony
that he had ma ked the bills before they were
! fent, and could not identify them. and that they
and the above certificate were incofrd under
cover by the prs6drnt Of the bank TO Irwin,
1 Whole hgnature 70 tn letter YEAS proved. The
court thought the teftrory iradmifIiic.
Tie attorney then faid he would go on upon
The tetimony of the witnefs who had feen the
preh'ent and csflier write, and proved their
fgnatnres were correfpondeut to thofe they had
uied for years p1f. The court iaid that the e.
/ violence OF that witneF9 could not be admitted,
as he had not feenthofe ot!irer write until fnce
the crime charged aeainf the orifoner.
| The attorney then defred to know if he might
proceed tn "-Ivince The jury from the teitmo-
ny of the prif'ner conduit, that the bills we,e
forged, as well as that he knew them to be 70 /:
| The conrt obferve1 that the opinion was to eX-
clude The officers Of the bank Of Lexington, and
the merchants who bad tefiifed to the forgery
as matter o. opinion sIiiing from comparifpn,
and an infection oC nOire and mi from, n Lno,,.