The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-01-30
THE CASE OF JOSHUA D. MINER

Alleged Counterfeiting-EMor to Revive
IN Old observation-disclosures Of Coun-
sci.
In October, ISL, Joshua D. Miner was indicted in
the United States Circuit Court for having IN his
possession, custody and control q metallic plate,
engraved after the similitude OF genuine plate
nom which obg cations and securities OF the United
States had been printed. In the same month and
year Miner also indicted for having his pos
session certain other metallic plate, engraved
after the simhtude or genuine plate used in the
printing OF United States Obligations. The plate
referred to in the first indictment a dollar
plate OF the National Bank OF Poughkeepsie, and
the plate mentioned IN the second indictment was
. two-dolar plate on the Ninth National Bank OF
tine city OF New York. Miner brought to trial
In December, 1871, on the first OF the above
named indictments, at the close Of which the
jury found a general verdict OF not guilty. The
District Attorney now moves the trial of Miner
on the second OF the above-named indictments.
Miner nterposes plea OF autretots acQtit, intend
ing insist the trial that he cannot be on
the last~named indictment, for the reason that
the elonies charged in the TWO indictments are
charged to have grown out Of the same Identical
act; that he, having been prosecuted and tried
upon one Of them and acquitted, such trial and
acqulttal are bar to any further prosecution.
The District Attorney contends that the offences
charged In tue two indictments are distinct
offences and that the acquittal on the first is no
bar to trial and conviction on the second.
The defendant maintains that the evidence
which the District Attorney proposes TO give
the trial OF the last named Indictment ia, in every
respect substantially the same as that gwen upon
the trial OF the first, which was as 1Ollows:-The
government gave evidence tending to prove that
ON the 18th OF October, 1870 the defendant had in
MS possession the two plates already mentioned,
TIED up securely IN one package, and that ne gave
them on that day to one Henry C. Cole lot a con-
saderaton of 81, 500, then and there paid to him.
and that such payment and delivery OF the plates
was In pursuance OF an agreement made between
these two persons before that time that the same
should be delivered and that the consider alton
should be paid on the day named that in order to
prove that the possession OF the plates set out
In the nrst indictment, unlawful, the
government put in evidence the plate described in
the second Indictment ana gave evidence also
tending TO prove that Miner had, on different &C.
CaslOns, sold to Cole bank bills which had been
printed on the counterfeit plates, and that Miner
money therewith. on the trial, on the part of
Miner, there was evidence given tending to dis
prove that Miner ever had the possession OF the
plates, or ever paid the consideration therefor or
had ever passed or sold bills printed thereon to
Cole, and upon such conflicting evidence the ver-
dict OF not guilty was found. 1t Is conceded that
the only evidence that Miner ever had the plates
in his possession was that which tended 10 prove
that he delivered them, tied together In one pack
age to Cole on the 10Th OF October, 1870
1t will be remembered that the trial or this
case 1t appeared that Cole the principal witness
coun terfeitnR. was pard0ned out on condition that
he would testify against Miner.
Benedict, yesterday Mr.. William Fullerton, Mr.. Z.
Ii. Kitchel and Mr.. G. +. Mclean appeared as cOun-
Bel for defendant, and Mr.. A. II. Purdy, United
states Assistant District Attorney for the govern.
ment
The argument OF Mr.. Fullerton was. among other
things to the effect that the crime charged in the
indictment was in the wicked and unlawful intent
OI tne deiendant-namely the intent to use
Ine piate the possession OF which he stood
charged VIII, lot the purpose OF counterfeiting
money. Inc intent was never effected. II ne had
counter1elted the money with the several plates
And passed IL on different persons at different
times, then ne would have committed more than
one onence. because his act would have resulted
In several injuries. Where the crime therefore,
consists OF the unlawful intent OF the party &C.
cused there Is but one offence. Until those diner.
ent offences are committed. however there ia but
one OFFENCE for which the accused can be Indicted
and convicted. In the further course of his argn
ment Mr.. Fullerton quoted the opinion OF chef
Justice Waite, delivered when he presided over
the Supreme Court Of Errors IN CoDnectlcut.
Judge Waite says
take IL TO be sound rule OF law, founded upon the
Plaineu principles Of natural justice, that where Grim
Snal act has been committed part of which may
De aieged IN single count Indictment proved
under H. the act cannot be split into scvera distinct
crimes and separate indictment sustained each
AND Wherever there has been nvictoD part,
viii operate AZ bar 10 any subsequent as
to the residue Thus where assault and battery has
Una although zach e'Sw my VI itself constitute Sab