Case Name: United States v. Book alias Bush
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1822-04
Citations: 2 Cranch 294
Docket Number: 
Parties: United States v. Book alias Bush.
Judges: 
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: 294–294

Head Matter:
United States v. Book alias Bush.
An acquittal upon an indictment for forging an order with intent to defraud John Lang, is no bar to an indictment for forging the same order with intent to defraud William Lang.
An order in these words, “ Sir, Blease let the bearer have one pair boots, Yours &c., Levin Stewart,” is a draft for the delivery of goods, within the Act of Maryland, 1799, c. 75, § 2.
Indictment for forging and uttering the following order: “Sir, — Please let the bearer have one pair boots, Yours &c., Levin Stewart. Mr. Lang, Geo’town, December 31, 1821,” with intent to defraud one William Lang.
The prisoner had been indicted before, at the present term, for forging and uttering the same order with intent to defraud one John Lang; but it appearing upon the trial that the name of the person intended to be defrauded was William, and not John, and an exception having been taken by the prisoner’s counsel to the variance, he was acquitted on that ground. Upon the present indictment it was agreed by the prisoner’s counsel and the attorney for the United States, that the prisoner should have the benefit of the plea of autrefois acquit, upon the plea of not guilty, in the same manner as if he had pleaded it specially.

Opinion:
The Court
decided that the acquittal upon the former indictment was not a bar to the present; being of opinion that the exception taken to the former indictment was fatal. See 1 Chitty, Cr. Law, 455.
The prisoner's counsel also contended that the instrument forged was not an order within the English decisions upon the English Statute of 7 Geo. 2, c. 22; Mitchel's case, 2 East, Cr. Law, 936, and William's ease, and Eller's case, 1 Leach, Cr. Law.
But the Court said, that upon that point he might move in arrest of judgment if the prisoner should be convicted. See Bates's case, in this Court, June term, 1810, (ante, 1,) upon the Act of Maryland, 1799, c. 75, § 2, in which the Court decided that the words " draft for the payment of money or delivery of goods," included such an order as the present. Verdict, guilty.
Motion in arrest of judgment overruled.