Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-11-02
A COMPLICATED CASE.
The Euretfes of an Official Bond
plead Non Est Facfum

Judge Trigg charged the jury in the case
Of the United States vs.. I. d. Evans. This
is one of the most remarkable cases ever
tried in this court. The circumstances
were the following: Some time ago suit
was brought by the United States against
Joseph III. Blackburn, former u. S. Marshal
for the middle district Of Tennessee, and
the sureties on his official bond. The sure
ties all plead non est factaun; and at the trial
sWore that they had none of them executed
the bond. Thereupon the Grand Jury
found an indictment against Blackburn for
forging the names to the bond, and inclu-
ded therein T. D. Evans, who appeared to
have accompanied Blackburn to present
the bond to Judge Trigg at Knoxville for
approval. Sevaral days sgo the case was
called, when Blackburn obtained a sever
ance, and then continued his branch
of the case. Evans pressed for a
trial. At the trial it was shown
that Blackburn and Evans, shortly after the
appointment of the former, came to Nash
vile with bond, which it was desired that
Judge Brien should recommend to Judge
Trigg as GOOD, and which was shown to
Judge Brien for this purpose, who objected
to the bond as informal, because the par
ties had only written their names in the
first part of the instrument, and had not
signed it; whereupon, at the Stacey House,
the bond was altered, by writing the names
of some of the parties at the bottom, after
which it was taken by Blackburn and Evans
to Knoxville, but was rejected by Judge
Trigg as informal; several days after which
another bond was procured and filed I'D
as if executed by the parties, and
taken by Blackburn to Knoxville
and presented to Judge Trigg, wto
accepted and approved this bond,
supposing it to be genuine, which was after
wards filed with the clerk of the United
State Courts at Nashville. This was the bend
involved in the trial. Evans accompanied
Blackburn in the trip TO Knoxville with the
second bond. 1t was clearly proved by
every government witness that the bond in
evidence was not the bond altered at the
Stacey House. This bond, it was proved,
had large ink stain on the lower left hand
corner, and the signature of Reeves, one of
the securities, was not written by him, but
signed with large mark, which was wit
messed by one Valley. The bond in evil
dence had evidently had no stain on the
corner, and there was 10 such mark or at
testation upon it and no trace of any oblit-
Grafton. There was no evidence of where
the second bond was fixed up, whether in
Middle Tennessee or East Tennessee, and
none connecting Evans with the act. 1t
vas presented to the Judge
in East Tennessee. The prosecution
was required to show that the offense was
committed, if at all, in Middle Tennessee.
There were some little variations between
tina bond and the description of it in the in
dictment, which, however, the Judge held
immaterial. The charge Of the Judge was
singularly comprehensive and luminous,
leaving on the minds Of all who heard it
the clear, fine lines Of thought. His Honor
charged that it must first be shown that the
bond was really forged; and he stated
that the failure Of the! Government
in the civil suit upon the bond, which
FAILURE was produced by the testimo-
ny Of the very sureties sued, who were en-
deaVoriDg to get rid of liability on it, was
not conclusive in the criminal case. If the
jury believed that the bond had been
forged, the remaining questions were, by
whom? with what intent? and where? If
Evans was implicated in any degree, he was
as guilty as if be had forged the whole.
The intent must be to defraud the United
States; but that would be inferred from the
act, if committed. The offense must have
been committed, if at all, in Middle Ten
nessee. 1.-THE jury believed that the bond
evidence was not that altered ct the Stacey
House, (and, by the way, every government
witness had sworn that it was nOt,) then
there appeared to be no evidence where the
bond had been forged, if at all. AS to the
charge of uttering, this had been shown to
have been at Knoxville, and not in Middle
Tennessee. The presentation to the Judge
was the uttering. We only attempt a brief
outline of the drift of the charge-all that
an unprofessional mind could expect to re-
tain.
In the afternoon it became evident that
the jury could not agree and so a mistrial
vas entered and the jury discharged.