Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-06-21


The State of Kentucky; and that subpoena for him hao
been issued aud returned not found. Without deciding
that The Of counterfeit coin falls within Inc rue ina
the best evidence TO be produced or lis loss or
accounted for and conceding for the sake OF argument
that il does it would that sufficient ground iot
the introduction Of such testimony was laid here. ne
coin had been passed 10 person living without Inc Com
monweath, there was no mode OF enforcing hs uue"u
ance and the Commonwealth had done all that was IN
her power do The ground OF the rule Is suspi'
cion OF fraud. For if it appear that there is oeue'
evidence Of the fact, which is withheld, PresumP
ton arises that the party has some sinister motive
far moi producing it, No such presumption can
mise here The coin in question was ne yer IN the
custody Of the officers Of The Commonwealth or un'
der their control. Nor would inquiry OF williams
have aided them His statements mol nhoer oa'n
could not have been used, and unless he appeared
and proyed the identity OF the coin, the inquiry
would have been vain. Some of the Court, however
are Of opinion that the rule referred 10 Goes moi Apply
10 The case in question Where forged instrument IL
se out in the indictment, it may be more necessary 10
produce the instrument 10 compare u win tne 'ns.u'
men, described but The fact of s counterfeit character
10 sill 10 be established by proof and though an nsPec
ton of the INSTRUMENT may tend 70 iacae .ne P'.o
The fact may also be established by ule testimony u
witnesses no have examined it, by the
Of the accused In Moore case, Leigh no, .he 'e
PENDANT was indicted for the larceny oil baDk notes
was objected that the notes should have been Poouceo
Il, ASCERTAIN their idep,ity and whether they were &C.
mime and of value The Court decided that was On.
necessary to produce hem that II was the province OF
the jury judge of their genuineness oy ,he esioenct
If produced, that circumstance "eahehs ne P'oo'
bu, does no, destroy the competency OF the other es
deuce TO prove them be Of yslue II is conceived oy
some of the Court that the same principle eppes 70
the in question. The coin alleged TO De 'o'geo Is
not out in the indictment by lis Tenor or purpois, as
in the Of forged instruments. whether me piece
if Produced was the one passed and is counterfeit
would depend las, upon The evidence, and the CUES
ton s which relates 10 the measure ana quanuy
of evidence Of which The Jury are the Judges and mol
TO the quality of The evidence when compared win some
other evidence of superior degree.
IL 10 unnecessary to the facts detailed IN tne
second bill Of EXCEPTIONS the Court being unanimously
of opinions that the finding of the jury was welt war
,aned BY the facts and circumstances proved on Inc
trial. :,
sentencing the prisoner ten years confinement in the
penitensry. The conviction took place after the pas
sage Of The act of March H. 1883 This law took e.I
from it's passage and provdeo that it any persons sna
he convicted of any of the offences menoned in the mrs
section Of The &c, 10 punish foreeIes key Code en-
ia 57s il shall be lawful to sentence such person
conpemen, in the peniten,ary for term not less mar
g.. ears From ths verdict il spreers that the cHence