Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-06-01


United States. The offence described in this indie
ment, II an offence at all, could only be an offence
against the United States and therefore could not be
taken eognzance Of by this court in it's deriyative
tnunicipai character. As a court Of the United
states the offence described beng en- offence against
inc common law, IF offence ut all, he asked with
the certnnty that he should not receive satisfac-
tory answer, 1t there be common law Of the United
states, whore IS Il to be found? Is it the common
law Of Massachusetts, of Maryland, of Louisiana
or Missouri? II there be common law of tho Uni
ted States, IT must be the same in all the States
whereas was notorious that in some Of the States
there Is no common law, and chat the notifications
OF 1t by statutory enactment are different in all the
states. Mr. T.. came to the conclusion after con-
Siderable argument, that there is no common law of
.h ms ontes states as a source of jurisdiction, and
,nat no onencc not based the Constitution Of the
United States, or laws made in conformity thereto
con DC within the federal jurisdiction. In support
OF which doctrine he quoted different legal authori
The next position taken By Mr.. C.. was, tina. no
Such offence as that described the indictment exists
az the common law. A fraud against the Govern
ucnt ana People must be such to produce gene
raj INJURY, must be public in its nature and effected
oy means calculated to deceive numbers. A thing
| might TIC public property in sense, and not in
another. Thus, the Bible, Shakespeares Plays, or
any work OF Vaiuc, were, sense, public pro-
perty; and as such every citizen has a property in
mem which Congress can neither control or take
away offence indictable at common law mr. st
no. merely be an offence against the public domain,
Out against the rights of the community at large
against the interest of tho Of the citizens.
Frauds, tn DC indctablc at common law must be
pubic IN their nature, and calculated To deceive the
tuolc IN general. The absence of any such feature
~ Tic present indictment, was All ncurGble do:cct,
ana couli not be got over in support of this doc
sTlnc Air. c. referred at large to various British au-
thoriics, &c.
Mr. c. nest proceeded tc state the moro srccify
exceptions winch he took to the form of the indict
inent, which. though hc dwclt upon them at large
ne iuuet be content briefly 10 notice The first OK.
ception which he took to II wac that il did not con-
Tam sufficient uverment of the "fnse pretences"
alleged TO have been made use of by the accused
In reference to the attempt to make out u case OF
forgery IA msdemeanor, in the indic nent the coun
sci on the other eide mus, have supposed that the
counsel Tor tho accused demurrng TO the ndict
nen sent out TO the jury, instead of those found by
them; for oil Indictment setting forth as forgery the
very abstract on which the charge of forgery was
now attempted to DO maintained u Inisdrrnrnnor,
nad oeen returned ignored by tho Jury. ,uld j,
have been expected, after this, whatever the ingenn-
ty OF the COUNSEL that they would be driven TO such
SHIFTS as to contend that it all the rest of this ndic
ulent was bad, they could establish charge of for
gerry uhderlE 10 sustain any indictment for forgery
| .he words falsely forged and counterfeitcd" must
oe used, and without them, words of like import
the Indictment could not sand g. no such words were
Used IN thus indictment. Mr.. G.. further impepchcd
the validity OF the indictment for stating 20 be false
WHAT was not false, butt to eIisain the Indictment
must be admit ed TO be true; and for containing allie
cations hypothetical alternative or not german 10
the matter, which, such of them as were introdu-
ced without reason, might be said to be wautonlv
introduced. He charged the indictment also with
incongrWty, Effectiveness, and inconsistency from
beginning to- the end. He denied that il included any
onence against the Public, because in fact the pub
lie had not been defrauded To this day the MONEYS
OF which the public were alleged to have been de-
fraudcd, stood charged to the Navy Agent upon !
whom drafts had been drawn, and the subsequent act
oerdsure IN an abstract, so far from going consum
mate fraud on the United States, alleged in the
Indictment, went directly to prevent such an effect
&c lie ridiculed the idea OF the alleged leiation
OF this abstract being forgery: abstract is an &C
count rendered, and had it been between individuals
~ would be Just as wise and reasonable to charge
The recipient with forgery or fraud because he had
drawn his pen across it, used it for the wadding Of
a gun, or thrown it into the fire. He had heard of
constructive treason but he.ncver before heard OF
constructive forgery, such was now attempted 10
be set up.
MIR. G.. further objected to the indictment, rs
containing, contrary to the established usage al
legations OF matters subsequent to the alleged of !
fence OF obtaining money &c.-upon which ground, |
with all those previously taken, Mr.. e. confidently !
rested an expectation that the indictment would be
set aside, &c. &c.
Mr.. Key replied to some Of tic new matter intro
duced IN argument by the counsel who last addres-
sed the court He said that the indictment ignored
by the Grand Jury not an Indictment for forgery
but an indictment under the statute Of the United
Stotes Tor presenting to public accounting officer
paper known to be false or forged; which had been
returned by the Jury because they supposed the Of
fence not to come within the statute though they be-
icved every fact in the indictment they had found 90
be true. lie denied that the words forged or |
cOunterfeited" necessary technical words an
indictment at coiimon law for forgery.-The old
Latin words to express the offence were fdJrcarit a,
contr1fecH, and he did not know that these were at
ell more or less requisite to constitute charge Of
forgery than the whimsical translation of them, in
common use, which bad been supposed technically
necessary. Aher divers other observations in re-
ply
Mr.. COKE rcjoincd in few word;.
MIR. JoEEs, council for the accused, again address
Sod the court. When he had the other day SUI,
gestcd, as sort of conectura inference, that the
counsel for the prosecution perhaps intended 10 i,
clude charge Of forgery in this Indictment he sup
posed that lac was stating inference which thcy
would hold up both hoDds against aud that this state
mcnt might be considered arg0eudo All absurclVj7
Ambiguity in an Indictment hosaiJ, was ;he most fatal
OF all exceptions It's charges must amount IN absolute
certaIntymust consist Of positive and direct aver
meDts-Of certainty to a certain intent and not 90
common intent, &c I'm the case cf ar, ,-err,o,,