Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-05

counsel on the other side had thought il worth
while TO controvert. This case had afforded an
opportunity for gentlemen to show their ingenuity
| by afiixing qualification 10 the rule laid down
which was not contemplated by East. He MAIN
taineA that the rule was, that fraud affecting the
puohc was indictable, while gentlemen qualified
the rule, so as to make it fraud affecting the pub
Tic, by means o! conspiracy, forgery, false to-
ken
| Here Mr.. Jones more clearly explained his
construction of the rule
Mr.. Key resumed. He contended that there is
plain head OF fraud affecting the public without
, reference to the means used This was denied by
the other side. He remarked upon the report of
Ireves' case, which quoted by the opposite
counsel. 1t was Hawkins's report, Curwood's
| Hawkins, Curwood who was watching Hawkins
to cricise him, If he lays down the law too broad
ly; and who is silent on this case. The case was
Tor selling unwholesome provisions, and it was ss-
tanned on the ground Of its being n fraud upon the
public, rather than the ground of injury to the
public health. This, therefore, bore him out in
the unqualified construction Of the rule for which
he contended. Chtty lays down that frauds AZ
fecting the interests OF the public or the crown or
affecting :he course OF justice, subjects of in-
dictment.-He quoted from Gritty cases relative
TO the use OF false dice, personating ball. pretend
ing TO be an object of relief at public asylum, az
ndictabie offences. He specified other cases
which came within the cognizancc of indictment
as msdemeanor. The form of an Indictment, is
gwen IN Gritty, p. 1901, for pretending to be an
OBJECT OF relief at a public charity. He referred
to entity vol 3, p 72l, where there is report OF
case oil an overseer, who had applied to his own
uses money collected for the poor, and had endea-
vored to conceal by false accounts. On no ground
could these cases be considered criminal il there
were no such specific head as the books con-
tanned. 10 come nearer home He referred
to a case in 4th Dallas, of baker who serv-
ed bad bread This case was put on the
ground OF its being an injury to the public
IS mus proved that injury TO the public
sidered sufficient ground for Indictment, without
regard TO the artiul conrivances, false tokens s.
by which il was effected The principle contend
ed tor would permit any man in the employment
OF the U. States TO take the public money without
oeing made liable for any severer punishment than
mat which awaits q breach of trust. He resisted
the idea that il must be imposed upon a govern
meDt to act with as much wariness as an in6ivdu-
all IN preventing frauds, else that there shall be
no remedy for the frauds committed upon them |
IL cannot be expected of government that they |
snail exercise that degree of vigilance, and thew
divduals
MIR. Key then made some comments on certain
cases which had been quoted and relied on by the
counsel on the other side, in order 10 shew that
they did not strengthen the argument against the
prosecution. He insisted that this act was an of,
renee against the public, and indicable at common
law lie believed he had thus made ont by argu-
ment' and cases, the two propositions which he had
risen TO sustain. But, even ADMITTING that there
was no distinct head, he contended ,hat there is g
nough in this offence itself 10 sustain an indictment
under the common law. He put i, 10 the court
whether the various pretences set forth in this n
dfctinent'did not place the amenabity Of hs per-
son charged to the common law beyond doubt
The indictment, he asserted, presents as clear
case oil forgery at common law as ever man was
guilty Of He referred to Blackstone for the def
milton OF forgery-making an alteration OF a writ
ing 10 the prejudice OF anoihers right and insisted
that TINS definition came up 10 the acts charged in
TINS Indictment against DR.. Watkins. He quoted
case from East where defendant produced false
papers, TO shew that he merchant by which
means he obtained certain articles OF value which
East considered as being good ground for an indct-
ment Tor forgery. There could be no doubt in his
view, that the production of false papers either AS
INK In chain OF fraud, or a substantive offence
is as clear subject for indictment for forgery at
common law as can be imagined.
Mr. Key laid down forgery as beinr the same as
fraud. he referred to the abstract, or quarterly
statement OF accounts, in which he contended that
the alterations made by DIR. Watkins amounted to
lorgery and supposng that all the other specifica
lions OF false pretences are insufficient, were e.
nough TO constitute forgery. The Indictment
which he read, states that r. Watkins erased GER
tam lines, containing statement of three drafts
drawn by I. Watkins, with an intention 10 defraud
the United States. II had been argued that this
is not forgery at common law He quoted East
to show that the Justification Of public or private
documents constituted forgery. The intent of
IaiSe making must be TO defraud some one What
KIND OF false making constitutes forgery? He
showed the opinion Of East to be, that the making
OF any fraudulent insertion or erasure in any true
writing, &c. Hence, he concluded that the era
| sures IN this abstract amounted to forgery There
IS another requisite to complete the crime of for
! gerry. IL must be successful. The money must be
obtained. In this case the person is charged with
having obtsined the money. The forgery, there
fore, is completed.
Judge Thruston suggested that the Counsel had
blended TOO much the charge Of forgery with
that OF fraud, instead of making the charge of for
gerry distinct and substantive one.
Mr.. Key considered chesirnd forgery as the
same offence, under the legal name of misde-
meanor
Judge Thruson asked if the Counsel intended
that there was ground for the Jury to convict OF
! forgery
Mr.. Key replied in the affirmative. But ne
principally relied on the charge OF eorpervas a IinL
only in the chain of fraud. lie felt no doubt that
the Court would see that this was chain of fraud
| Tor the purpose OF obtaining the money. III the
charge OF forgery was sufficiently laid in the in
dictmen, he insisted that This demurrer couId not
be sustained lie asked what law required that ne
should charge forgery in a distinct form? He had
shown That the fraud was contaminated n has
been said that the indictment does not show how
the fraud on the United States had been commit.
ted. 10 was not necessary Eie cited East m
show That the indictment need not state the man
ner IN winch apcrson to be deffauded; but that
that might he shown i'm evidence But althouob
under no obligation TO DO this, he had done H. mi
was charged that the erasures in tbe abstract were
usde with intent to defraud the United Sfates
The abstract, "a IFS face, showed that Harris had
these drafts Of I. Watkins, and he rniebt al anv
time, have been made responsible for them TIfs
however, is al concealed by the erasuTes. ami
hence ihe fraudulent intention.
Exception had beea taken 10 the language MS
] I'D 81 = sd al