Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-06-30
From The National Journal
COURT OF TIE COUNTY OF
WASHINGTON
WEDNESDAY, June 2I.

N.
Judge CRiNcH said, that as he dissented "a In
one point in the Judgment, from the other Irdro.
Judge TiiRusToN would deliver the judgment OF The
Court. ~
Judge THHusToS then delivered the iudrmen,
OF the Court as follows:
Various objections have been made 10 the suf4i
cheney of the Indictment in this case. 1t win not he
necessary however, To notice any other than the
ilrst-whlch is, that The crime Of forgery is not
charged with sufficient technical precision II Inns
been con'cndcd by the council for the United
states, that IN none Of the enumerated insta uces
stated in the books, in which certain technical words
are necessary 10 be used in the Indictment in rho
description OF the particular crime is forpery IN he
found as one; and hence the inference has been
drawn, that IN an indictment for forgery il ia nor
necessary To state that the instrument was forced
Or counierteted The principal case relied on TO
strengthen this position, is Rex vs.. Dawson in Ist
otrangcs reports. But upon careful examination
OF that case, il will be found that the only utes,,on
was OH the special finding of the jury whether The
incts so round dH'1u3ied to forgery and there,rc
we LINK not applicable TO the question in the pre-
sent case. we nave felt very sincerely disposed
duly TO weigh and appreciate the able ARGUMENTS
winch have been urged IN support of thu, indict-
Ineht. Upon careful examination, however Of NIL
The precedeuts OF indictments for for1erv nj conn
mon law, which have been able to Law our bands
ou, moi - 10 DC found where the term .forgedr
or 'coUntercited' has not been used cxcep i'm tho
present instance and there is circumstances even
as To thS instance, very worthy of notice-,vhch il
thai the learned counsel Tor tie United States in
framing their indictment in former recent case a.
%ain.t this Defendant for the same erasres or alter
atons of the abstract attached to the present ndict
ment, and which after having been acted on bv tho
Grand Jury, was returned "Ignoramus' seemed
10 think It necessary TO the term forged in ad-
dton to all the other terms used in this indictment
Inns opinion Is certainly entitled TO resnect and ma
DE well added to the number of precedcnis before
alluded to. In the absence then of u.y odudCed
case tothe contrary think there is much reason tor
say that where sue b has been the long, universe
II nSarrn ctt~l J,
cred as having grown into iu,v.
In further support of the necessity OF nsn- the
technical term, forged" icounerfeitedp is the
case IN the Massachusetts Rcports Commonwealth
". John Mvca. That was an Indictment for al
iering writ after service aid before the return
day; and the terms used In that Indictment af-
ter stating tie Introductory part, were ''that he
ttle accused before the time OF trial ..;
!y erase IN and J00l ne sid ,cris The tOu, Esle
ana Itd falsely al ualacfIlly insert IN tie room ana
pace Hfreof, ne 100rd UorceStey,' Grs5y ta1cfi-
~ ana (Gistty changing he Same urjt from a ,crit
directed to tie Sheriff Of re county Of Eco nv 60
q has Deputies, az Ae Constable Of A.,,arI ,cibj
lie Sdji6 county, 10 ,ort direc!ed to the Sheriff Of The
coUnty o; Worcester either OF his deputies or the
constable @ Hrread Uittl, tie county, ,cii. an
teHi to tnre, oppTess ICrong, aud dcfraud the Suio
a. * against ihe peace, &c On motion in arrest
o!judgncut, the ground that these terms contain
no technical description Of forgery, the Court says
III the facts stated IN the indictment constitute any
crime ut common law, ii is forgery bat there IS moi
lie necessary technical precision Tie Indictment "a
support o0ncct'on of sgery and judgment must be
arrested Now what the term in that case hich
was required TO give that indictment legal pre-
cIsion 1t seems TO us other than the WORD
"torged" Are not the terms used in the Indictment
in that case apy descriptive ofthc crime Of fox
gerry those used ia this case? We think tLcv nra
These considerations are -,r"n"ly corroboralcd by
the observations ottbe able EtiOr of the late Amer
icun edition Of Convn's Digest, @y VOL l. title indct.
neat q 6. page 638.) VIZ are therefore brought 70
7 this conclusion that there is q want ur technical
he nd ptu onpfi l.
as IS omitted that it DC sustained "a an indct
mc1t tor fraud ~ common law, the majority of In,
court arc o.! opinion that the Judgment on the dcmur
ror must be for the dcendcnt.
! Judge CRANcu then stated his dissent from, Nh,
( Judgment, in the following terms:
/ This is the fourth Indictment against the defendant
20 which he has dcmurrcd. 1t is in these WORDS
Washington C0ip'y,. { SCI
he Grand Inquest fOr the body Washington coun,v do
upon their oath, present that Richard d. Harms being Nav,
agent OF the United States at Boston, hiTeh day
September IN the eighteen hundred twenty sevsn anc
hain on that day made ont his abstract Of expenditures
such Navy Acu required by the rules and orders of
Navy Department Of the u States third quarter of ma
var ennns on me td iheh day o September which abslrac
was headed entitled abstract Il. Tenditucs during the q
quarter year 1921 ending Sept 30h by Richard Harri.
Sy Ag, 9o.oH an, TO SGT forth The expenditure
and account Of tie u. States and contained among mann
other charges of expenditures as Aforesaid the following tire,
" isa Sept 10 i, Watkins al s a ao@ 500 500 90
Which said abstract IS m the words g. figures following N wi,
which SAID drafts So stated arr said hrer
itonis and changes diais drawn said Watkins on tb
SAID Has Navy Agent aforesaid and dated on the four
tenth day If August fourth day Of Scp,erer ene
the nineteenth day OF September Respectively nv the wear las
aforesaid IN favor of Charles Fowler and sold and delivered
10y said Watkins 10 said Fowler; and the said Harris havnr
transmitted the said abstract 10 the said Watkins as Fourti
Auditor Of the Treasury Of the United States who was the
proper oeT to receive me and the said Watkins havnc
received the same tire said Watkins aeN ards TO wit on tho
first day Of November IN tho year last aforesaid at the COUNT
aforesaid falsely and hauducniy altered sad abstract by
orasiug ihcrefon tic words.
ct Watkins dat
. do DO OF $500
Do do
"Opposre 10 the dates OF Sept 1st 10Th aud 2li prc
fixed tn tic aforesaid the said
under the head OF "Aucamgcs prior 1927 herein before
set out with intent % dctaud the a. States the great dam
ae on De United States aud against tho peace and government
| iheTcUt "THO: SWAMI, Airy. q. States"
Tine difference between this indomcn, and The one prrtr
gs returned by The grand jury gnoamus, consists socly IN
leaving out the words forged and following tho word 6a