The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-06-14


,Orleans-the second count charges the forging to
nave been dore in the city of New York, and the
third count charges the uttering of this instru-
d% nn' knoTSing II to be forged, to have been
Is bare. possibility that il may have been
forged IN the city of New Orleans, but no evil
dence on that point has been laid before you, and
therefore you may dismiss the consideration of the
then which you must consider the forging of the
instrument in the city of New York, and the utter
Ing OF 1t when forged in the city of New York.
II there Is evidence OF the prisoner being guilty
on either OF these counts you will find according
ly: The. great stress is laid on the utterance
OF this instrument. Now a very few words will
suffice as to the law Of this case; for to that there
canb little difference Of opinion. In the year 1880
aprinciple Of law, until that time novel in our juris-
prudence, that, namely, of dividing crimes into de
grees was Introduces; forgery, which received the
especial attention OF the reyisers divided into
several degrees" toleach of whchwas affixed DIFF
ferent degree OF punishment To the first degree
was awarded period of not less than ten years
imprisonment in the State Prson-to the second,
period OF not less than five years. and to the third,
period not exceeding five years. 1t is under the
third degree that the present indictment is brought
New OF course without dstractng your attention by
any reerencelo the two first degrees of forg cry will
the third. 1t is as follows. ANY person who
with intent to inure or defraud, shall falsely make
alter, Jorge, or counterfeit any instrument writing
beng or purporting to be, the act of another, by
or purput to be, created increased, discharged, or
negotiated, by which any right or property shall
be, or purport TO be, Nc, the punishment OF which
is not within the degrees before prescribed shall be
guilty OF forgery N the third degree" Now it is
conceded that thisieter was such an instrument as
is pointed out in the statute II was an instrument by
WHICH pecqniary demand to very large amount
(S25 200 beeve) was created The forging of such
an instrument then was forgery in the third degree.
Then IN subsequent paragraph of the statute we
Ind that every person who shall be convicted of ut
tcring such an instrument shall suffer the same pun
lshment as If guilty of forging said instrument.
Therefore you see that whether you find that he
forged this instrument uttered It, the punishment
IS the same, the offence being essentially the same
Now perhaps It may be proper to explain the tech
meal term " UTTER, and then with one other re-
mark my duty as to the law of the case will be
discharged He is charged with having uttered this
instrument Now this :" uttering" is thus explained
Cowan, giving the opinion of the Court, and quoting
an English writer, " is any disposal or negotiation
OF forged instrument to another person." He
quotes other authorities on this point, among them
TO vend, publish, SELL" &c. Thinking Tomlinson's
explanation OF the term too large, Judge Cowan
comes finally to the conclusion that the instrument
must DC Negotiated" ,c,th fraudulent intent.
OF law to which must advert You observe that
both these counts of the indictment charge the act to
have been committed in the city of New York
believe that the prisoner forged it here in Inc CITY Of
New York. But, as | observed before, the chief
offence Ii the tutoring" the negotiating of the
instrument to another person, and though shat had
statute. The case to which have recently called
your attention very celebrated one in our ju-
rlsprudence, and one of recent occurrence-it was
nat OF Benjamin Rathbone-a name almost
historic from the magnitude of his offences
The proof in his case was that he put the forged
instrument into the post office of the city OF New
ofk and the court then came to this principle, that
the CRIME OF uterng or publishing is not complete
OF some other person imam the elon, ana iii If
reaches the person to whom sent. Now. trust you
understand all the law on this point. If this note
was forged by Monroe Edwards in the CITY Of
New York, he is guity-if " negotiated" that Is
gwen e. to Brown, Brothers Il Co, then he is guilty
S q us'e5ns It, Ii was put into the post Office
then he is guilty. Or if it was put into the post
once al alexandria, or at any of the Intermediate
places, and reached Brown, Brothers y Co.. then
York. The principle comes down to this, that if he
oy any means whatever put this note in course of
transmission to Brown, Brothers 81 Co. at New Or.
leans s, Aehan n or any Of the intermediate places
BY an innocent agent. then he isguy of the offence
under the statute. The law lies in narrow com
pass have now very briefly, and trust sufficiently
explained it to you There is no difficulty. believe.
about the law; of that you are the Judges.
Here would gladly leave the case, which has
been prepared with great industry, and argued with
surprising talent. But although not so absolutely
my duty TO sum up the evidence as it is to pro-
nounce the law, nevertheless it is my duty so TO do
l am aware that you are much exhausted and as
tor myself, must confess thar l address you under
circumstances Of great physical and mental fatigue,
close OF the term. Still / will endeavom to dis
charge my duty In all points. The prisoner gentle.
men OF the jury, was arrested on the I'd Of Oct,
Of Philadelphia, on the charge Of having defraudea
Brown Brothers and Co. of S25 900 and upwards:hay
ing received that amount of money in Baltimore Ma
ryland, and Richmond, Virginia. The first enquiry
In a criminal case is, has there been crime COM
milted! That the instrument is forged of course
we have the most conclusive evidence on earth-tbe
evidence OF Shaw, member of the house of Maun-
sell, White and Co., who pronounces 1t forgery
~ winch the address of the house was put by
himself. But there are certain other crcum-
stances which attended this crime to which
your attention ought to be called, because |
drawn, directing your attention to the criminal |
would remark here, that this is case essentially OF
evidence There is very little direct
proof. Some indeed there is to which / will in due |
course direct your attention but still there is no
positive proof-that Is, there is person brought |
forward who saw Munroe Edwards forge the paper, |
I ne did forge it--no one who saw him utter it |
hat is If he did utter it, You are here to arrive at
hat conclusion, by carefully considering the cir |
OF the case and the question will then
De-, whether these circumstances are 20 clear in |
her inferences, SO fertile in their deductions as to
cave jury without any rational doubt az to the |
lemphasize that word RATIONAL" be- |
cause II is no wavering doubt--no transiiory cloud
passing over jurors mind which must influence
his decisions II must be rational doubt firmly set.
ling itselfn his mind. Turn, then, your attention.
yentemen for few moments to this crime itself.
md see what inference it affords. Here then, on the
Nh Of july 1871, letter is put into the Post Office,
It Philadelphia, directed to Maunscll, White Il Co.
If New Orleans, and on that day according to
he testimony of witnesses not to be disputed, the
prisoner twas at Jones' Hotel. This letter says
$ with a brother, think, who is proprietor of
! large Gotten estate in Philips Co. Arkansas--that
ne has been recommended by his friend, Mr.. Gray
;, E ~ Va to this housetha it. is
:hants<o planters-that he h now at the north get
ing engines-asks if any ct the members Of the |
lrm will be on at the north, and if not, wishes to