Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1829-06-04


enla,ed 20 Deceive numbers. thing might be I
public property in one sense, aud not IN ano'h-
err THUS the Bible, Shakespeare Play, OF
any other work of value. we're, IN one sense,
public property and a. such every eiiizen mas
n propert, in them which Congress can Meth
ss control OF lake away. An .oftnee indicsa-
bile nj common law must not merely be
an offence against the public domas
but against the rights Of the community ~
larre-againsi the interest oil the mass oithe
citizens. Frauds, 10 be indietabie at common
Law, must be public IN their nature, and ealGn-
lated TO deceive the public in general. The
all ense OF any such feature IN the present ~.
di1iment uas an incufable defea, aud could
not b. 20, over. In support OF this doctrine
Mr. {. referred al large 10 various British AL.
thoriiies, &
Mr.. { MT proceeded IN state the more spe.
/ oifc eute rfIaut which he took 10 The form OF
the indictment which, though he d~elt upon
them al laI =, We must be content briefly TO
notice Ihe first en- cepton which he took 10
IL was That II did not contain a sufficient aver
mcut Of the " false preienoes' alleged to have
been made use of by the accused. In refer
ence 10 tie ATTEMPT to make out case offor.
gerry ~ n mlshemeanor IN the ind ictmrnf, the
counsel On the other side must have supposed
that The counsel FOR the accused we're demur
stead of those found by them Tor an indiet
mont settling forth rs forgery the very alb
sract on which the charge OF forgery was now
attempted 10 be maintained rs nisdemennor.
had hcon returned ignored by The Jprc. Could
i tfye been expected after this, whatever the
ingenuity Of the counsel, that they would he
driven to such shifts MS 20 contend that II all
the rest Of this indictment was bad they could
establish n charge Of forgery under il \ To
sustain any indictment Tor forgery, the words
u falsely forged and coupierfciied," must be
used and without them or words of like import
the indictment could not stand; aud no such
words were used in this Indictment Mr.. {
further impeached the validity of,he inlet
menl for stating TO be false, what was not false
| but To sustain the indictment, must he admit
ted 10 be true and for containing allegations
| hypofheiicnl alternative, or not germain to
| the matter, which, such Of them ms were intro
| duccd without reason, night be- sad 10 be wan
| 1only introduced He charged the indictment
also with incongruiy, effectiveness, and in
consistency from beginning 10 the end. lie
! denied thai il Included any offence against the
Public. because in fact, the public had not been
defrauded. TO this day the moneys of which
the public were alleged TO have been defraud-
ded. stood charged 10 the Navy Agents upon
whom drafts had been drawn. and the sobse
|
gong to cbnsummale fraud on the United
| States. as alleged in the indielm nj, went d.
| rectly To prevent such an chsci, &c lie iidi-
cnlcd the idea Of the alleged alteration OF his
! abstract being a forgery. an abstract IS an &C
count rendered. aud had il been between indi-
| yiduals il would be just as wise and reasona.
BILE 10 charge the recipient with forgery or
fraud because he had drawn his pen aoros i
used II for The wnding Of gun, or thrown II
into the fire. lie had heard of constructive
treason, but be never before heard Of coostruc-
tive forgery, such as WIS now attempted to he
| set up.
Mr.. G. further objected TO the indictment as
cont iiuiug contrary to the esta ,lished usage,
allegations OF matters subsequent 10 the al.
leced offence Of obtaining money, sc. upon
which ground. with all III ose previously taken
Mr. G. confidently rested on an expectation
that the indictment would be sen aside, &c.
DC.
Mr.. Kew replied 10 SHINE OF the new matter
introduced in argument by the counsel who
last addressed the Court. lie snid that the
indictment ignored by the Grand Jury was not
an indictment for forgery, but an indictment IN.
der the statute ofhe United States for presenting
10 public accounting officer "a paper known
to he false or forged whc had been return.
ed by the Jury because they supposed the Of
they believed every fact in the indictment
they had found to be true. lie denied that |
the words " forged or counterteited" were ne. |
cessary technical words in an Indictment al |
common law tof ,orgery The old Latin |
10 express the offence we've fnbricnph Ell con |
trdtecit, and he did moi know tnat these " g |
nj all more or less requisite 10 constitute |
charge Of forgery than the whimsical transla-
ton Of them, IN common use. which had been
supposed technically necessary. After divers
other observations in reply
Mr. CoNE rrjoined in n lew words
Mr.. JosEs. counsel for the occused again |
addressed the court. When he had the other
day suggested as sort of conjectural infer.
ence, that the counsel for the prosecution per |
hsps intended 10 include charge OF forgery |
IN this Indictment he supposed that he was
stating an inference which they would hold
up both hands against, and that his statement
might be considered drgaendo al absurdum
Ambiguity N an indictment, he said, was the |
most fatal of all exceptions. Its charges must |
amount 10 absolute certaniy--must consist oil |
positive and direct averments--ot a certainty
to n certain intent and not to a common intent, |
&c. In the case of an averInent that person |
was an officer OF Bank as decided 10 this
cnurt, il was not sufficient 10 prove that he |
was Clerk in n Rank &c. With regard 10
=
il was intended TO charge the letters written by |
the accused to be forgeries, and being answer
cd in the negative, he said, nothing could
more strongly illustrate the absurdty of at
tempting TO establish charge OF forgery in this
indictment, which declared. hat those letters |
were falsely and frauduenlly written, whilst
the requis'ion and abstract alleged to be forg |
ed were in the same indictment charged only |
ia nearly the same terms, 10 be falsely aud |
without authority. &c. 1fthese words consli |
'uted charge OF forgery in the one case, they
did in the other &c. which the counsel for |
the accused themselves would be the first to de-
precatc.
MI further took exception to the indct.
menis, one and all. on account OF the mulliia.
rIousness, Indebtedness, aud uncertainty OF
the charges they contained, which he said was
a radical aud incurable vice, more mischev.
Gus in bill of indictment than even in a bill
in puuifv--anl for yafiaus nth pr rpasons which