Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-08-18

"y ann the consequent violation which AZ would n. S
"a ,, oA'n I" evade an answer by fictitious plea IN,
lawyer S"d he could give ether In the conc. ~ -"
exanatou he expressed his regret for bavoy
we o'e' as ne now thought II indscreet aithoneh bs
way "u' aware al the time OF doing any thing n,pon.,
ress'nE " the preposerous answer that he A..
oiseosu'e OF the name Of his correspondent might
nv" ni"se'i " the Court being applied to- deciding
hat the witness the sole Judge sf the truth of his
answ"t' the young man was dismissed.
however indignantly the JUDY might have felt towards
~ p,'"e' OF the communicated calutnnies, ur the
"V a"'nor of the editorial ones, their res. ntmen MT
sgeins' the witness would have been speedily tmed
oy AVS cont'ie expressions, and by the fact which was
from the simpleness Of his answers mud his
hat he was guitlsss least of the editorial
oes aud prnbnby knew much more about m. oh,,s
we VIII only add that he treated with t.sr.r, M,
| - . u''o"ghoui hrs examinations; aud therefore,
" Ne "'"oi "i human nature, hope that he has had no
agency In the torrent of ST. CHESS filth with which we
the Grand Jury has been hespattered by the
republican, since his return home. WV
"h''e on the subjcctof Grand Jury utocr,d,ss md ne
ethhps especially incumbent on Ms To r.uej the
unnes with which that body beTu assailed we ,s,u
USE ,"e occasion to- notice another point ON which tho
ct TIE Jury has been mss pprehenied possibv
oy s"me' and 'nsrepr-seotcd by othcIs-we mean in c
CARO- :" the refusal Of the jury find an indic,n.o,
AGAINST l. - ATKINS for FORGERY. or ss IN, rh,,s.
was hnuing the offence hut refusing fluid the
ues We cannot effect object better I'm, he s,,h,,
nS tue assigned by the Jury itself for It's cou,,
w answer to letter addressed by the u,os,eu,;n,
c"uhse'. For this purpose have borrowed the p,n.r
''"" the hes OF the Court, aud suhjoin it,
GRAND JuRY Room
~, - JHy 81, 1929.
'm oy me Counsel for the United States aud IN ,eE,
s; :" e MI "' indictment up against Tobias Wat
MUS l"t forgery, respectfully state, That tbev ro,,,
'"und AMI never Intended hnd an inatnrv 1,.ssn,
against The prisoner for the offence Of forgery: Tina,
onu jury h'"' when the case early in the ern
presented 10 their consider ny United States Al,
'"n"y IN person. and explained by him. decided ate, h;
",'h"awa and on mature deliberations that the nnwnd
mission and suspensions, le,s, il not the s,,sn,c ~
te1 IN his CO.
allowance was m act coming within the legal rnuuten
CIV oil the 9TH Auditor and ordinary and Common
occurrence, in the discharge of his Official do,y Tina,
nefeore e partial erasur", ana suspension by the late
Fourth Au tor Watkins. of certain items IN tho ,h,.,
oil annccuunt current, transmitted him for settlement
'nouSh prohaoy done Ia effect the of ri.
vouS fraudulent transaction, did not or its. If cons,i,
tie crime OF forgery, the erasure could effect no r,o
70 he H"vernment TO the individual, inasnucb as
w""u conclude nerher party in final settlement nj
'e account, nor enable the said Auditor possess himself
unjusty or frHudulcntly uf the funds of Mr. Harris. -, 80
"'heI person: That The aega ton of FALSELY AIryn
IN" the abstract of account (Which, amon- many Other
circumstances forth in the Indictment, in which II
allegation was first introduced one NJ the chain NJ
ny winch IT was intended tn establish chief charer
oulect" the indictment, namely the ad IN,
treasury was suffered by the Grand Jury to mass in
ofn and Tor that purpose although they would have
sen ID hnh the altering of the ABSTRACT,
O"e"Ce w d'sthct peSentment, believing they do
that 1t was not document in alteration of which ,b
offence OF forgery could he committed: That h
ever, admitted the allegation of "rALsELY ALTERING
s an incidental and auxiliary point, in the Cnre.sd il,
dictmen' they did not feel themselves authorized In
I" mud the same charge, THE SAME TENNIS in a sena
rare ah distinct bill when, subSeque ptly sent an
TO mem by the Counsel Of the United States leaving q,
the Court to punish the offence If they should aindee il
l" De one and the prisoner, trial. convicted of IN
ou the Grand jury for the reasons above briefly rcced
refused To find Indictment forgery in the of rho
alteration OF r. ID. Hariss account. (not, a. has bee,
falsely aedged, from unwngress to find the TECH
NiCALTiES necessary TO sustain their presentmen hui
from convection mat forgery had not been committed
as they dad in the similar transaction in regard 10 the
count of j. X Paulug the time that both cases were
personally submitted TO the Grand jury by the Dis,tie
Attorney.
BY order OF the Grand Jury:
ANDREW WAY, Foreman