Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-09

raining oil an indictment Tor forgery.
Mr.. Jones said that when he had suggested
had designed to impu'e the offence of forgery, he
had supposed he was using Grgunentuns dd
abst0di'rn, against which the gentlemen would
have lifted both hands He then contcndsd that
ut was necessary 10 the sustaining OF an indct-
ment that the technical language descriptive of
forgery, should not be gifted. He asionish-
ed to hear gentlemen on the other side now say
that they intended to npu,e the crime of forgery
az ainst all these documents.
Mr.. key.--No, Sir, the gentleman misunder-
stands us Not all.
Mr.. lones.-Only the rcquisi,ion then?
Mr.. Key.-No, the abstract.
Mr.. Joncs.--And the letters!
Mr.. Key.-No only the abstract.
MIR. Joncs.--This illustrates the ambiguity of
the indictment. He then Disseminated between
the forgery and the false obiaininent of the issue
OF document; and insisted that unless il could be
shewn that u requisi,ion, letter or document was
in,rinsically forged no other of forgery,
from simple alteration, such as is now shewn
could be sustained. He contended that there must
be distinct and actual fraud upon the face of
transaction, before IL could be sustained in an in
dictment. Now the abstract is merely an account
between the Attn Auditor and the Navy Agent,
which is sent to the Auditor and of which he is the
sole Judge. This abstract does not go to the Comp
troller. The Comptroller regulates the set,lem ent
OF the accounts OF the 4th Auditor by the vouch.
| ers sent 10 him By the Auditor, and this abstract
is not considered voucher, and there fore cannot
be acted on by the Comptroller. If the abstract
had gone to the Comptroller, the effect would have
been directly contrary to that which is TO be ga
thered from the charge, made in the indictment,
since the alterations would have caused the alb
sract TO be RENTED to the Auditor for the vouch-
| ers TO explain it, Blanks erasures Of any cha.
racter, would have had the effect of checking the
| progress of the accounts, and leading to the de-
lection OF the whole matter. Not being per Sc a
| forgery, but merely forgery of private paper
II was not sufficient 10 sustain charge of fraudup
on the United States.
He then spoke OF the multifariousness of the in
dctment, an evil of the most mischievous charac-
ter. The counsel on the other side laid il down
that offences which are liable TO the same punish
ment may be all properly embraced in one count.
The court had frequently decided that the multifa-
robustness oil charges was cause of great perplex-
ity TO the Court.
MIR. Key here 10 assert that several char
ges OF forgery might be embraced in one count
and stated that the requison in fact forgery.
MIR. Swami rose TO say that the counsel for the
prosecution intended to prove fraud, aud did not
take their stand on the ground of forgery, as the
means by which it was effected
Mr.. Jones replied that he needed no better IL
ustration of the practical evil of mutiiariousness
in an indictment. The gentlemen had said they
wished to shew fraudulent act. May be, they
could get at it by forgery, may be, by false to-
Sens, but they wanted only to shew the fraudu-
lent end. He then went on TO state that he should
be newly enlightened, if it could he shewn that
number of not only various, separate and indepen-
dent offences, such a forgery committed one day
and forgery committed another-but also, that
offences diverse in their character, could all be EN-
braced in one Indictment.
Mr.. Jones then made some observations on the
use made by the counsel on the other side, of the
term '' public offences" He said he had looked
into all judicial history in vain find that the ef
iect OF fraud was ever, in any case, made the
test or indicium by which it was decided whether
or not it was ndictabe. He also showed that no
fraud had, in the practice Of the English courts ,
been indictable, unless accompaniment by some Of
those false tokens which were described and
known, by forgery other incident He laid ii
down that the very theory OF indictments rests on
some supposed injury to the public. Libels, &c,
are not ndictable, because they inure or y, but
because ihey are offences against the pulic peace.
The ground on which all offences against the good
morals are indctable is not because they iniure
individuals, but because they are in violation OF the
public peace, and injurious TO the public good
Injuries against the person of the King are placed
on different footing from offences against other
persons; .and hence some isolated case may be
found where case has been decided in reference
exclusively to the peculiar view taken by the
English Ian OF the person and prerogative of the
King, but which view cannot be transferred 10 our
practice, or be embraced in our views of lega, re-
iatOn between accuser and accused. He took
view OF the argument which had been raised on
the case Of the United States against Howell the
baker, which he did not consider as having any
hostile bearing on the case as presented by the
counsel for the accused. He also took view of
the distinction taken by the opposite counsel be-
tween the fraud which committed under a
trust, aud that which was perpe,rated by a wrong
ul attainment of the means in the FIRST instance
That committed under trust, it was coutended
the possession being originally rightful, could not
be indicted; while that which originated in
wrongful possession, was indicable. He shew-
ed that, by false token, he might be induced
to refuse trust, and the trust being thus super
induced by wrong, the fraud committed under
that trust should be regarded proper subject for
indictment.
He wished 10 make remark on the question
" Whether an offence can be adjudged to be COM
United against the United States, in its highest
sovereign character, by the mere force of common
law. He argtted the negative of this proposition.
lie showed what are the offences brought within
the cognsance OF the common law 1t was not
the question what was the Jurisdiction Of the court;
but what is the constituent OF the offence? There
are common law offences of which this court has
jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction arises from the
local relation in which the court stands to the c.
tiZens OF this District, from the laws of Mary
land or Virginia. II the seat of Government had
been in Pennsylvania, would this officer have been
punishable under state law?
Judge Thruston called the attention OF the coun-
sci TO the case OF Pease.
MIR. Jones said the prisoner there was tried for
forgery under statute, and was, after all,
not convicted. But, ii the court would excuse
pun-if we are to stand on P's and Q's we shall
never get along.
Mr. Jones continued. IL This Court were in the
body Of State, could il adjudge on case of Of
fence against the United States, as common law
or statutory offence. The State court would have
no jurisdiction unless it was communicated TO it by
statute. This is not question which affects the
lie OF an individual; hut itnvolves important con-