Case Name: Commonwealth versus John Mycall, Esq.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1806-09
Citations: 1 Tyng 136
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth versus John Mycall, Esq.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
Commonwealth versus John Mycall, Esq.
An indictment against a justice of the peace for altering a writ, issued by himselt, after service, and before the return day, not charging the offence as forgery cannot be supported.
The indictment charges in substance that the defendant, being a justice • of the peace for the county of Worcester, issued a writ of attachment, in favor of one J. W., against one J. R., directed to the sheriff of the county of Essex, and to his deputies, and to the constable of Harvard, within the same county; that the writ having been served by a constable of Harvard, in the county of Worcester,■ and returned to the defendant, he, before the time of trial, did unlawfully erase in and from the said writ the word Essex, and did falsely and unlawfully insert, in the room and place thereof, the word Worcester, thereby unlawfully and falsely changing the same writ from a writ directed to the sheriff of the county of Essex, or either of his deputies, or the constable of Harvard, within the same county, to a writ directed to the sheriff of the county of Worces ter, or either of his deputies, or the * constable of [*137] Harvard within the same county, with an intent to injure, oppress, wrong, and defraud, the said J. R.—against the peace, &c.
Upon this indictment the defendant was tried and convicted before the late Judge Strong, at April term, 1805. After the verdict, a motion was made by Bigelow for a new trial, on account of the misdirection of the judge. That motion was afterwards changed into another in arrest of judgment, which was supported on the ground that the indictment, being a charge on the defendant for altering a writ after the service of it, and before entry, contains no technical description of forgery; and there being no lesser offence of that kind, if the defendant is not convicted of forgery, no judgment can be rendered on the conviction.
The Attorney-General (Sullivan)
said it was not the intention of the grand jury, who found the bill, to charge the defendant with the crime of forgery.
Bigelow
was informed by the Court that he need not trouble himself to argue the point.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
If the facts stated in the indictment constitute any crime at common law, it is forgery ; but there is not the necessary technical precision in the indictment to support a conviction of forgery, and judgment must be arrested.
Note. — Sedgwick J., when delivering his opinion, said that, soon after he had arrived at home, after the last term, when this question was broke, he received an anonymous letter, which was post-marked as from Boston, and which, after expressing much respect for his person and character, entered into an argument relative to the question now decided by the Court. He regretted that this letter was either lost or mislaid. He still thought it right to declare that such an address, under such circumstances, was not only improper and indecorous, but highly criminal; and he hoped that this public declaration would be sufficient to prevent, in future, any such indecent and offensive applications.