Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-11-26

vonr OF person then in Philadelphia, but presented
In an altered and forged state in Massachusetts, should
be presumed in the absence of all proof the contra
~, tn have beca altered end forged In Massachusetts
his decision IL not opposed, II II DO MOI supported. by
the English eases These where dissfirn
the principle that the possession Of forged
Prt'na Jacie Presump:ive proof that the forgery
was comnited at the place where such possession
hrst made known; but in each particular case the de-
cision in favour OF tho accused upon the ground
that there sufficient councr-proof to remove the
presumption.
maotiy Of The court are. therefore. OF opinion tina,
the petition for writ o. error be rejected. In this
Pnion Judges Johnston. Seaple Nov and Lo,nar de
not concur Those Judges place different construc-
lion upon tho bills OF exceptions from that which the
majority put upon them. IL those Judges had een.ru-
ed the exceptions as submitting the facts
Judge Johnston would have concurred with the msio
W and Judge LoMdr would have so far concurred as to
consider the possession. Sc. prma Jaca evidence of
aiding an assisting Judges Iav and Senpie were of
opinion, that although the evidence would have been
legal and proper for the consideration the jury and
that they might well have deduced from the infer
enco OF the prisoners guilt yet that IL was error TO in
struct them tina, was prfaa facie evidence thereof
Judges S;Uart aud Parker sitting
Thomas W. Br0'on,) Petition for writ of error to
The Commonwealth of Kana,rha. 'S''''' o''''
ne hrst count oil me indictment against the petition
err charges that he did case and procure to be offered
to be passed to certain Edmund Perrynan three GER
tain iase forged and counerei,ed bank notes of the
paS OF me United States at their office Of discount and
opposite al Wee Orleans; the cnour Of the counter.
ieted notes Is then set out in FULL the intent Is stated to
be to injure aud deraud the said Edmund Peyrrpan,'
and the scisRter Is well charged
Tho second charges that the peti,Ioner did oase
10 slave named .Hiius belonging TO certain John ID
Letos three other coun,erfcied notes the tenour of
which Is set out, with intent TO injure and defraud the
,resoent, Directors and Company of the Bank OF the
lated States; laying the sci.nter In the usual manner
The petitioner, upon being set to the bar moved the
court 10 qnash both counts of the indictment. His
motion was overrucd; and no then pleaded no, guilty
and was put upon his trial. -
appeared by bill of exceptions that on lmpann IL
ing the jury, aJuror was called, who being examined
on oa'h STATED mat he had expressed opinion the
as he had heard them narrated In the
country hut that he had heard any of the eyd nee
gwen Oh We examination, or conversed with any of the
OF parties IN the cause. and that he did not
think the opinion so formed would have any influence
upon his rniRd in rynghe This Juror e prisoner
challenged for His challenge for cause was ~
yeruled and be then made Of bis prereupory cha-
lenge. F' 49,
The jury who were impannelled, found the prisoner
sny nnd ascertained his of imprisonment ia the
penitentitry 10 be ten years
The prisoner made q motion for a new trial u bic,
was overruled. And the Judge then made statement
oil the iacts appearing in evidence the trial. which
was ordered TO be made part of the record and TO n
vail the prisoner much if the same had been set
ont in bill of exceptions. II appeared that the Corn
monwealth produced a witness named Ross whose evil
dence uy supported the verdict, II ho was believed
as an aceompiice with the prisoner; anl the tes,i-
mony winch he gave upon the trial varied from that
which he had given before the examining court The
other evidence, exclusive of that of Ross was clearly
snsulneeht 10 warrant the conviction And the motion
LOT me new TRIAL was made upon the ground OF the In
competency or want of credbility of Ross
Aer oVerruiing The motion for trial, the Judge
pronounced sentence according to the verdict; and now
an application was made 10 the General Court for writ
1f error 10 his Judgment
November ls-The application was argued by John
'on Tor the petitioner and opposed by the 1ttoyoe,,
General tor the Commonweal
was insisted that the FIRST in the indictment,
was nsutcient, because did state trhon the pr
oher caused OF procured to offer the note or ho,c or in
tchdt manner 6y acat means he caused or procure5
The same 10 be offered TO be passed.
IL was objected that the second count was defective
because The intent was laid 10 defraud the Bank ltI
was ihstcu mat The intent must be defraud the ne r.
son TO whom the note is oered and wheni Is offered 70
servant or agent 1t should be laid deraud the mas
er or principal. ~ ~
SpTouce's case, Va Gas 375, was chiefly reI.d an
10 sustain the objection the Juror The new rial IL
IS ought TO be granted, when appeared that
I'd witness " rSJ>"
Nocennber 22--B rockenbrough. J. delivered ,ba o.
,inion of the court- ~
The objection TO the first count cannot be sustained
n RdsnicRs case Va Cas- $50 the indictmo M char@
ed that the defendants did falsely make forge and o5
creit, and did and procure TO be falsely made
forged and counterfeited and did willingly act and assist
IN 'ne ia'se making, forging 81 counterieting" 1t pur-
sueu he words OF The statutes and it held 10 be suf
cieht' In HuDmons case, Rand 6S5 the objection
was taken that the did not set forth the D,Jso or
I whom the prisoner caused or procured forge
'he instrument, and those with whom he willingly acted
ana assisted in the forgey but the objection did not nre
vsl In that, as in the preceding case the court rel
ed very much upon the forms of indictments TO be found
III 'Hca0'1d ana Chtffy upon statutes similar TO our
own The authority of these forms is strongly
ed by the case OF tn. King vs. Holden and Others
aunt 33l also reported in Leach 1919 and Russell
ana Ryan l54. In that the form OF the indictment
was objected 10 before the f,ceive Judges; and thew n,
UNANIMOUSLY decided 1t TO be sufficiently certain II
also been decided that IL not necessary 10 oct or, a.
pdTtcutdr manner, by which the fraud was efccted.
hat being mere matter Of evidence g (hiff,, Ot2
quoting Leach IT. In the case now before the court
e .ehCur oil The notes is fully set out the person to
"hon hey were offered TO be passed Is stated and the
intent 10 delrad and inure particular individual il all
so charged We unnninaously of opinion that ,ho
first count is good and sufficient w
NOT can the objection TO the second count be sustain
co. Inc count does not lay intent which was i'm
siDc' he natural and inevitable consequence of nass
ing counterfeit Roes is TO njure the institution whose
notes are so counereited. Its interest is affected lie
cre"' impaired. The man who passes them KNOWING
mem 70 be counterfeit is presumed 10 intend II, lL
= the necessary consequence Of his nassn ,bor. "a
ne therefore, comes within the provision of the stsne
In support OF this view of the law we have the au,bor
~ Oh we hnglish Judges in Req .haru fazagora
Russell and Ryan 29I We consider The sccond So,
Roou as wen as The rst and in this opinion we are also
unanimous. F " S "'so
=, The case OF Sprouee in Va. Cas- s75 which il re-
hed upon in support of the objection TO the ror VOC
consider TO be different from this Here tbe iuror d;d
not express decided opinion Tbis case T.; or ~,
maj oil PoifdTd in Rand, 65S. The court is. there
ore OF opinion, that the bill OF excepons she We mn or
or ont from This opinion Judges Senple and IDshf,
In Byrrs case Va Cas-. 400. tbi, co,,r, raw ,,..
iecided opinion the competency Of an accompIcs Ne
lu1ess al any lime before his conviction The oreson
D. ms credlbty, we think, may he Jeff TO the deern,
pn OF me Jury under the superintendent of the JUDGE
In this case, the credit of the witness has beon A.
hrmed by the jury, and sanctioned bv the ;ydse rh