Case Name: The People vs. Thomas Warner
Court: Recorder of New York City
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1823-02
Citations: 1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 186
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People vs. Thomas Warner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wheeler's Criminal Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 186–188

Head Matter:
The People vs. Thomas Warner.
dictment on counterfeit notes, upona question whepassed‘by the prisoner to a has-been™ - stroyed , by ther the'note was counterfeit, is a proper subject for ationofajury
On Counterfeit Notes.
Thomas Warner was charged with having in his possession, with intention to pass, and actually passing to George Armstrong, a counterfeit $3 note of the Eagle Bank of New Haven, knowing it to be counterfeit,
. The facts of this case appeared as follows : The prisoner’ on ^lñ 30th of December, in thex evening, came into-the grocery store of Mr. Armstrong, and • called for a §lass °f spirits, and gave Mrs. Armstrong the $3 note described in the indictment, in payment. Before she gave him the change she called her husband, who was sitting m an adjoining room. He came and examined the note . . . and told the prisoner it was counterfeit, and that he knew to so i an^ upon interrogating liim, Warner told Armstrong he received the note of one Patrick, who had married his sister.
Mr. Armstrong told him he would send two young men with him to ascertain the fact, whether he got the note from Patrick or not. The young men left Mr. Armstrong’s store with him for that purpose. Warner, instead of going to the place, took them a contrary direction; and it was evident he intended to elude them. One of the young men returned to Mr. Armstrong, and he went with the young man and seized Warner by the collar, and told him if the did not show from whom he obtained the money, he would take him to the police office.
Warner then took him to the house where Patrick lived, he was detained at the door while Mr. Armstrong went into the house to inquire of Patrick ; to the question whether he had paid Warner a $3 note of the Eagle Bank of New Haven, he replied in the negative; but after Patrick had come to the door, on Warner saying to him don’t you recollect having paid me a $3 note ? he, after some hesitation, appeared to remember "having paid him money of a similar description. Mr. Armstrong finding that it would be attended with a great deal of trouble, without the prospect of obtaining sufficient proof to warrant a farther interference, was about permitting Warner to go about his business, when Mr. Flannan came up and charged the prisoner with attempting to pass upon him, the evening before, and also with having passed, either by himself, or in company with Patrick, a fale note upon him of a similar kirid.
Mr. Armstrong was then determined to take him to the proper authority. He was handed over to the watch. Mr. Flannan, after the prisoner was secured in the watch-house, understanding from Mr. Hebber, the captain of the watch, that the prisoner had a number of good bills in his pocket, consented to give the prisoner the counterfeit bill in exchange for a good one. He accordingly gave the prisoner the counterfeit bill, and received from him the same amount in good money. Captain Hebber intended to take the counterfeit bill out of his possession, in order to be exhibited as evidence against him. He called him up for that purpose during the night; but upon a strict search of his person, no bill could be found. He refused to answer any question respecting the bill; but it was very evident he had destroyed it.
He was taken to the police next morning, examined, and committed for trial.
Mr. Armstrong identified the note on the trial the prisoner attempted to pass upon him.
Maxwell, District Attorney,
offered to prove the bill, destroyed by the prisoner in the watch-house, a counterfeit bill.
Price, Scott, and N. B. Graham,
objected, that the dis- . - . _ _ _ , , _ traction of the paper must be first proved to have been effected by the prisoner, before that paper could be given in evidence.
Mr. Maxwell then called captain Hebber, who proved the facts before related.. His Honor, the Recorder, observed, that it was a proper subject to be left to the consideration of the -jury, whether it was a counterfeit bill or not,; and whether the prisoner destroyed it, knowing it to be counterfeit. -

Opinion:
The jury found a verdict—not guilty.