Case Name: UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1827
Citations: 24 F. Cas. 815
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 24
Pages: 815–815

Head Matter:
Case No. 14,452.
UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON.
[4 Cranch, C. C. 476.] 1
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Witness — Trial for Forgery — Interest.
Upon an indictment for forgery, a person interested in setting aside the instrument forged, is not a competent witness to prove the forgery.
JiOTE, See TJ. S. v. Porter [Case No. 16,-072], in this court, in 1812, where Jenkins, the person cheated, was examined as a witness for the prosecution. 2 Hawk. P. C. 610; Rex v. Whiting, 1 Ld. Raym. 396; McNally. Ev. 105, 124; U. S. v. Maxwell [Case No. 15,749], in this court. Peake, Ev. 94; Abrahams v. Bunn, 4 Burrows. 2255; Smith v. Ptager, 7 Term R. 60; Bent v. Baker. 3 Term R. 27; Respublicn v. Ross, 2 Dali. [2 U. S.] 239. See Hardr. 331; 1 Salk. 283, 286; 2 Strange. 728, 1043; 1 Yent. 49: 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 46. §§ 24. 25 : 2 Strange, 1229; McNally. Ev. 121; Peake, Ev. 96. 116: 4 Starkie, 770, 771; and the following cases in this court: U. S. v. Suter, Nov., 1807 [Case mi-reported]; Bayne’s Case, Dec.. 1830 [Case No. 1,146]: Ú. S. v. Brown, Dec., 1827 [Case .No. 14,658]: U. S. v. Bates, April. 1823. and June, 1810 [Cases Nos. 14,542 and 14,543]; U. S. v. Moxley, Dec., 1812 [Id. 15,830].
UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON. See Case No. 14,672.
Indictment [against John Anderson] for forging an order in the name of Mr. Dorsey, who was called as a witness for the United States.
Mr. Brent, for defendant,
objects, and contends that no person, interested in setting aside the instrument, is competent as a witness, to prove the forgery. 2 Russ. 374; 4 Starkie, 573, 582, 5S3. In those states where a contrary doctrine prevails, it is by statute; and in England there is a late statute (9 Geo. IV. c. 32) permitting such testimony; which statute would have been unnecessary if it could be permitted by the common law. Ross’s Case, 2 Dali. [2 U. S.] 239; Keating’s Case, 1 Dali. [1 U. S.] 110; 10 Petersd. Abr. 70.
THE COURT (hesitans) rejected the witness.
Mr. Key, for the United States,
offered again to examine Mr. Dorsey, upon a collateral question, and contended that he was competent to prove any fact except that the signature is not his. Rex v. Boston, 4 East, 5S2.

Opinion:
THE COURT
(nem. con.) still rejected the testimony of Mr. Dorsey, because he was offered to prove a fact tending to prove the forgery.