Case Name: The State against David Gustin
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1820-02
Citations: 5 N.J.L. 749
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The State against David Gustin.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 862–863

Head Matter:
*The State against David Gustin.
Purport.
ANOTHER indictment for forgery, against the same defendant, was found at the same time, and the same proceedings, until judgment, were had, as in the preceding case.
The indictment charged, “ that David Gustin, late &c., on &c., and after the dissolution of the co-partnership of the said David Gustin and John Ogden, who had shortly before carried on trade and merchandise, under the name and firm of Ogden & Gustin, at &c., did falsely make, forge and counterfeit, and did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged and counterfeited, a certain promissory note, for the payment of money, signed by the said David Gustin, with the partnership name of Ogden & Gustin, and purporting to have been signed by the said David Gustin, with the partnership name and firm of Ogden & Gustin, before the said partnership was dissolved; the tenor of which said promissory notéis as follows. “$5000. Ninety days after date, we promise to pay William Shute, or order, five thousand dollars, at the State-Bank at Elizabeth, without defalcation or discount, for merchandize rec’d. E. Town 30th Deer. 1812. Ogden & Gustin.”, with intent to defraud the said John Ogden, and to render him liable to the payment of the said sum of money, in the said note mentioned and made payable, contrary to the form of the statute,” &c.
Halsey moved to quash.
1. For uncertainty and inconsistency. 2. Because the purport was incorrectly stated; it being stated to be signed by defendant, with the partnership name of Ogden & Gustin, whereas it did not purport to be signed by D. Gustin. 2 East 982. 3. Because partner, before or after dissolution of partnership, may sign partnership name, for a separate business, and not be liable to the pains of forgery.
Ohetwood answered,
and referred to 2 Hawk. 344. 1 Mod. 78. 1 Str. 234, 241, 266. 1 Salk. 384. 1 Leach 239, 410. 2 Str. 486. 2 Leach 660.
State vs. Gustin, ante 744.

Opinion:
The court :
Southard J. dissenting; overruled the motion, and put the defendant to plead, &c.