Case Name: The Commonwealth v. William Quann
Court: General Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1817-11
Citations: 2 Va. Cas. 89
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commonwealth v. William Quann.
Judges: JUDGES PRESENT.
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 148–150

Head Matter:
*NOVEMBER TERM, 1817.
JUDGES PRESENT.
White, Stuart,
Brockenbrough, Allen,
Randolph, Dade,
Saunders, Daniel,
Semple, R. E. Parker.
The Commonwealth v. William Quann.
Verdict — Entry on Order Book — Right of Clerk to ■State Grounds of Verdict — If the Clerk of a Court, in entering on his Order Book, a Verdict of Ac quittal, proface it by a statement of the ground on which it was rendered, without the authority of the jury, such preface is improper, and ought to be expunged from the Orders.
Autrefois Acquit — Identity of Offence. — An Acquittal of the felony of forging an Order, and of uttering as true a forged Order, is no bar to a prosecution for the misdemesnor of fraudulently obtaining goods by means of a false privy token, and counterfeit letter, the said privy token being the same Order, of the forgery and uttering of which he had been acquitted.
The prisoner was indicted by the Grand Jury of the Superior Court of Rockbridge. The first Count charged that he, on the 10th December, 1815, at the said county, felo-niously did falsely make, forge and counterfeit, and feloniously did cause and procure to be falsely made, forged and counterfeited, and feloniously did willingly act and assisted in the false making, forging and counterfeiting a certain paper writing, altogether written, purporting to be an Inland Bill of Exchange, to be signed for Weildy Hughte, for Samuel Crory, alias M’Crory, with the name of him the said Weildy Hughte, (he the said Weildy Hughte, alias Hughes, then and there being the Clerk of the said Samuel M’Crory, and then and there having full power and authority to sign such bill,) and to be delivered to the *said William Quann, and to be directed to Matthew White, by the name of Mister Matthew Whyghte, the tenor of which said false, forged, and counterfeited paper writing, altogether written, purporting to be a Bill of Exchange, is as follows, to wit: “Spring Forge, December 10, 1815, Mister Matthew Whyghte, pies to lete William Quan have 18 dollars in stoars, for Samuel Crory. Weildy Hughte With intent to defraud the said Matthew White, against the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, &c. &c. The second Count charged him with uttering and publishing as true, the same false, forged paper writing, purporting to be aBill of Exchange, knowingit to be false, &c. The prisoner was acquitted, and judgment of acquittal. The Clerk in extending the verdict wrote it thus : (“ And the writing on which this Indictment was found, having been determined by the Court not to be a Bill of Exchange, and inadmissible evidence in support of the Indictment,) on their oaths do say, that the said William Quann is not guilty of the charges in manner and form as in the said Indictment against him are alleged.” On a subsequent day of the Term, the prisoner moved the Court to expunge from the Record of the Trial, the words within the parenthesis; on the ground that although the Court did reject the paper, yet there was no exception to the opinion of the Court, nor any direction by the Court on the day of trial, to enter upon the Record, the fact of the rejection of the said evidence, nor of the opinion of the Court thereupon, and no entry thereof had been made on the Minute Book, the words having been inserted by the Clerk on the Record Book after the adjournment of the Court.
At another day of the said Term, after the acquittal as aforesaid, the prisoner was again indicted. The second Indictment charged that he did, the 10th December, 1815, falsely, unlawfully, and deceitfully contrive and devise a certain false privy token,. and counterfeit letter, purporting to' be signed in the name of Weildy Hughes, for Samuel M’Crory, directed to Matthew White, &c. requesting the said White to let the said William Quann have 18 dollars worth of store goods, (the said Weildy Hughes then and there being the Clerk and manager of the said Samuel M’Crory, at the Spring Forge, and then and there having full power to draw such orders for said M’Crory, the tenor of which said false, privy token and counterfeit *letter, is as follows, (here it is set forth in the same words as in last Indictment). It then charges that he did present the said false, privy token to the said Matthew White, and by color and means of said privy token and counterfeit letter, did falsely, unlawfully, wickedly and fraudulently obtain from the said White sundry goods to the value of $18, with intent to cheat the said White of the same, &c.
To this Indictment the prisoner pleaded “ autrefoits acquit,” in which plea he set forth his examination by the Justices, before whom he was charged with having obtained goods from Matthew White, by means of a false token, and by whom he was remanded for trial before the Circuit Court; he also set forth the Indictment as found against him, his trial, and acquittal thereof ; and averred that he, the prisoner, was the same William Quann who was examined, indicted, arraigned, and acquitted as aforesaid : that the offence for which he was then indicted and arraigned, and of which he was acquitted, is the same offence for which he is now indicted and arraigned; that the false token mentioned in the Records of the Examining Court, is the identical false token for which he is now indicted and arraigned, and is the same identical paper writing mentioned in the said Indictment, upon which the said Quann was arraigned, tried and acquitted, and which said paper writing is charged in the first Count to have been forged, and in the second Count to have been feloniously uttered by him, &c.
To this plea the prosecutor replied, (after craving Oyer of the Records, &c.) that the offence for which the said William Quann was examined, indicted, arraigned and acquitted, was not the same for which he is now indicted, &c. and tendered an issue to the county.
Although this replication was filed, yet the Attorney for the Commonwealth objected to the reception of the plea of autrefoits acquit, so tendered by the prisoner. And the Superior Court adjourned to this Court, the following questions: 1. Ought the words objected to in the Record of the Verdict of the former Case be expunged from the Record ? 2. Should the plea now tendered by the prisoner be admitted by the Court ?
TTie principal case was cited in Com. v. Adcock, 8 Gratt. 692. See also, monographic note on “Autre-fois, Acquit and Convict” appended to Page v. Com., 26 Gratt. 943.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
'1 The Court is of opinion and doth decide, that the words which,' it appears by the Record in this Case, the Counsel for the said William Quann, moved *to have expunged from the said Record, ought to be expunged therefrom. The Court doth also decide by the unanimous opinion of the Judges present, that the plea of autrefoits acquit in the said Record set forth, doth not, in point of Raw, offer any bar to the prosecution founded on the Indictment in this Case, and therefore, that it ought to be overruled."