The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1898-01-07

OF this indictment is to be tested, as 10
the alleged acts by Owens. He Is charg-
ed with uttering the alleged forged re-
ceipts aforesaid. Are his acts, II true,
suclr as will support q legal convlc-
ton? To have that effect, the papers
set out and SO alleged to have been ut
tered by him must be forgerles. B!sh-
ops criminal law, vol. /, sec. 43I; vol.
., sec. COS and subdivisions; Clark's
criminal procedure, p. 2O6, This viii not
be contested. Indeed, the code has fixed
this; CHI, 146, sec. 8. The question then
necessarily arigcs: Are the papers go
set out forgeries? utterlng Is a sub
stantlve crime. To be criminal utter
ing. the papers must be forgeries. All
reported prosecutions for uttering arc
OF cases of forged papers: such as
would against the forger be the found.
alton for an Indictment for forgery. We
can see how It has become q necessity
to have n definition OF forgery. This
necessity has arisen, because, in the
early history OF the common law, what
are now well defined as forgeries we're
included in a general classification with
minor offences, and so the early COM
mon law courts called a class of the
most heinous offences, OF the character
referred 10, forgeries-so metaphcrlcni-
ly called like "the smith who beateth
upon his anvil and forge with what
fashion and shape he will. At n subsc-
quent period, statutes were employed
to prosecute for such forgeries of pa
pers, and so It is the statutes on this
subject are uniform In material re-
spects, but under them from an early
period 1t has been a necessity Of the
courts to give definitions OF forgeries.
Such question arose In Virginia in the
case OF Fulks. Cd Rob. Reports. p. Sc.
It is not every paper. even II falsely
made and which might be 10 the pre-
JUDGE OF anotlier's rights, that car. in
law. be called forgery.
What character OF papers, even IL
falsely made, car be called forserles:
Making such instrument as agent. IN
der q false assumption of authority, Is
not forgery. This statement is here
m,do mon the hrnothrsis ,ssumcs bv
,bc nrosacn,,on bnt which 10 dan,ad
and repealed by defendants. In this case
!, ;s m no ,,hsarvcd ,,,t s,;1 n, nars
30 s,-nod go n r p,der nor ,trs e
n camden" For argument assume
~ hr,o,ho.,s ~ N, nrocoo,tio, g
truo. ever Then The noners arc not for.
cnr,se
N,,,,rr sucb ins.rnnnnts nc ,pan.
rr1sr r,,sa assu,n,,,o, ., on,rority is
~, ro.csr,. ,,aerso,,s D;c,io,orv Of
~. 1rd;cto, 5sont,,,,s aud ,rtornra.
-. 800 ,eo
4, .,,Io ,bo ,,no- r,,s, ,,r,ort 10
- r.ritirr or onoth.r th,n 40 NOV.
sor r,,o r,aIc !, Tder, , .sq
rsa,o ~, Ia no rorcsr, ,n,o c,so III,
.,,s ,.,,ara ,ba ,onors s,,,,. thor. y.arn
..,,tod: =. s.on. ~ , nr,roin,i. o,sn
,rsS,ai, oro,o,. ,1,1 not avis, .ho.. ,o,11
-, !. sna.s ~, anI,. 49, ma,,rr
~ ,S1.s,.o,, ,,nar,oon .. I,,n,,s,,
,"na5, go. III = 40
,n,,arn 49,
- o,e~,,. =, .,,o ~. - H. 80
1",,.ss . IT, Into o,s,5 !. 10 sian,d
.snS..s- - -, ana on,nar-
an. a,,aa
- - ,,-o,,. ,,, a. ,,,,.,,,,
.ns5., ~ m.,,nm w. ma1a :, 10
r . =.
-. 30
,.nh ~ 80 ,ha n.,,a,no,
=,
:.
NV So, ""Nt
"as -
what : P"' ro.t9
""'oN,
e.u' pe,"ot' - ""' 10 NM,
Oh VIVA st.'e,e"t uppe'ufu '"'
"as '"'"o''Hs' :" s1s" ue 'oo
""N
ST.
-hn'eileSa iC'ses' VI 1871 y w.
Nas"."s "nut "sN"'''..
'"a' ue p'',s's w.
= ,"'s - Sc' e",s
we're maue Without a'thorl'y, as biaek-
n't''' lus,'ee, 'e',,ulNs, .e'.lnk ne
ooSS nor oee''nt ioaseFS 'eeauae J. Is
fsauGF" " ":''t's, BISHOP Ne"
I,i"'.nat law, WI. : : "o'e :" SEC. va
IN all sueh cases, Waete the name OIL
another IS employed per ano'hcf' ana SO