Case Name: United States v. Jesse Carter
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1821-05
Citations: 2 Cranch 243
Docket Number: 
Parties: United States v. Jesse Carter.
Judges: (Thruston, J., absent,)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 2
Pages: 243–244

Head Matter:
United States v. Jesse Carter.
If a person, knowing the contents of a forged letter, and with intent to obtain money thereupon, deliver it, although sealed, to the clerk of the person to whom it is addressed, and whom he supposes to be authorized to open it, this is evidence of uttering it.
The act of knowingly uttering as true, a false and forged letter, requesting the person to whom it is addressed to pay to the bearer a sum of money, with intent to defraud any person, is an offence at common law.
The grand jury found two indictments against the prisoner at common law. 1st, for knowingly uttering as true a false and forged letter purporting to be from T. Bayley, and addressed to Mr. Jonah Thompson, requesting him to pay to the prisoner ¡$400, with intent to defraud Mr. Thompson. There was another count charging the same as being done with intent to defraud Mr. Bayley.
The 2d indictment was for uttering a similar letter purporting to be from Israel Janney, and addressed to John J'anney, requesting him to pay money to one John Preston.
The Court, (nem. con.) at the request of Mr. Swarm, for the United States,
instructed the jury, that if they should be satisfied by the evidence that the prisoner knew the contents of the letter, and presented it to a person who he supposed was authorized to open it, and with intent to obtain money thereupon, it was evidence of uttering it.
The jury found the prisoner guilty upon each indictment.
Mr. Mason and Mr. Taylor, for the prisoner,
moved in arrest of judgment, and contended that the indictments did not show any offence at common law. That it was only an attempt to defraud by false pretences, which is only a statute offence. That no person has been actually defrauded, and that an unsuccessful attempt to defraud a person is not an offence at common law. If the attempt had been punishable at common law, there would have been no necessity for the statute of false pretences. They cited 1 Chitty, Crim. Law, 421; Rex v. Wheatley, 2 Burr. 1127; Young v. The King, 3 T. R. 104; 2 East, 817; 3 Chitty, Cr.,Law, 428; The Stal. 33 H. 8. of False Tokens, and the Virginia statute of False Tokens, 18th November, 1789, p. 45; 1 l^iawk. 182, c. 70, p. 187, c. 71.'
Mr. Swann, contra,
cited Ward's case, 2 Ld. Rayra. 1461; Commomvealih v. Searles, 2 Binney, 332; Sfivage's case,.Styles, 12.

Opinion:
The Court
(Thruston, J., absent,)
overruled the motion, and entered the judgment.