Portland gazette and Maine advertiser. (Portland, Me.) 1805-1818, 1817-12-23
STONES TRIAL.

inc the late trial of Paul Stone, Jun. before
the District Court, which 10 say the least of
it, Is OF novel If not extraordinary character.
Ii certainly has not been usual TO arraign the
decisions of any of our Judicial Counts, and
discuss and decide upon their correctness in
public newspaper. Whether such meas
ure be improper, as we'll as unusual, ] leave
to others 10 determine. Nor would suggest
any remarks on the above mentioned decision,
had The writer Of the artclein The Argus sta
ted all the facts relating to the subject.
Ii would be thought uncandid should ! pre-
sumo that the publication alluded TO was made
TO niure the Hon. Judge in the public estl-
mation-and will not presume II: but even
it it had been, his Office, age and respectable
ity; his unsupported integrity and upright
ness would be perfect shield against such an
imputalion. 1t is not my province 10 sbew
that The decision was correct-nor can it be
that Of the writer in the Argus TO revise it, if
incorrect But it is no more than Justice 10
the venerable Judge Sewall TO state all The
particulars.
After a verdict was returned against Stone,
bis counsel filed motion in arrest OF Judg-
ment. Several reasons were assigned, but
only one of those was argued al length, or
considered by the Court in the decision.
Tie indictment charged that Stone, on
certain day "with force and arms did feloni-
ousy pass, utter and publish certain falsely
altered bill. made and issued by order of the
President, Directors and Company of the
Bank Of the United States, of the tenor fol-
lowing" describing the bilD knowing the
same to be falsely altered, with intent TO de-
fraud the President, Directors and Company
OF the Saco Bank, and Samuel PierSon, the
Cashier thereof :"
The first of the two reasons was, in sub
stance, that il was not alledged in the indict
ment that the bill was passed, uttered and
published TO any particular person o. corpora
ton and the second was that the indictment
charged the defendant with having passed
fllsefq altered bill, &C. made and ISSUED by or
der Of the President, Directors and Company
ofhe Bank of the United States-which the
counsel for the defendant stated was an absur-
dity in terms
The opinion Of the Judge was founded on
the first reason.
The counsel for tie defendant read TO the
Court the record of six several indictments for
passing counterfeit money, which had been
found ia the Supreme Judicial Court for sew
erai years past, in ALL of which the name Of
the person TO ghom the bill 7gas passed, was in
variably stated in the Indictment; and no in
dC tment for passing counterfeit money could
be found in the records of our Supreme Court
where such name was not inserted and tie
tool oil
to shew any precedent OF an indictment for
passing counterfeit money in any Court or
Book where the name Of the person to whom
the bill was passed was not stated-but none
were produced. The defendants counsel
read several passages from Hawkins Pleas of
the Crown, aud other authorities, showing that
in case of indictments nothing material shall
be taken by intendment or implication and
they contended that bill could not be pass
ed without person TO pass ii and another TO
1eccize IL and that the charge ia the indict-
ment could not be explicit without naming the
person imposed upon, any more than an in
dictment for beating or killing man or ex
torting money, or winning money by gaming
from man could be good without naming the
person beaten, or killed, or from whom the
money was obtained. Ii was urged that the
cases cited by the Dist. Attorney were of
different class of forgeries- such as forging
deeds, bonds, bills Of exchange, &c. or altering
and publishing them as true, knowing them to
be false-which offence might well be com
mitted without passing them TO any particular
person.
The case of Ellsworth was not even men
toned in the argument by the District Attor
ney, and il certainly ought not to have been
cited in the manner it was IN that communica-
ton. 1t is there stated that the courts in Eng
land decided that it was sufficient to aIledge
in the indictment that the defendant uttered
and published the ball, without warning the per-
son to whom it was uttered and published
Here the reader is left TO suppose that the biH
above named was counterfeit bank bill !
whereas it was a bill Of Exchange, which Els
worth was indicted for lettering. II should
have been so stated, if fair statement was in
tended
The above sketch is given to prevent mis-
apprehension and to do justice TO all concern
ed not to try the case again by newspa-
per appeal. If the indictment was good and /
sufficiently technical the Judge has erred in
judgment Ii It was not good and sufficient, il |