Case Name: Commonwealth versus Obadiah Hearsey
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1804-10
Citations: 1 Will. 107
Docket Number: 
Parties: * Commonwealth versus Obadiah Hearsey
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 107–108

Head Matter:
* Commonwealth versus Obadiah Hearsey
Question as to the date of a bond. [Where there are two dates, one in the penal part, and the other in the condition, the former must prevail. — Ed.]
The defendant was indicted for forgery, by altering a word in the condition of a bond from six to eight. He pleaded not guilty.
It was alleged in the indictment that the bond was dated the I5ih day of October, 1802. The bond produced had the same date iu the penal part, and in the usual place ; at the close of the condition to the instrument, immediately above the signature of the obligor, there was written, “ Given under my hand and seal this 25th day of October, 1802.”
B. Whitman, for the defendant,
objected to the bond produced going in evidence to the jury, on the ground of variance; he said that the bond offered in evidence was dated the 25th day of October, and therefore was not the bond described in the indictment, which is alleged to be dated the 15th day of October.
The Attorney-General, (Sullivan,) in reply,
contended that the bond offered in evidence was dated the 15th day of October; that toe penal part of all instruments of this kind was always considered as the bond; that it was so considered in this indictment, in which after a description of the bond, (that which in legal estimation is the bond,) it was further alleged that there was a certain condition annexed, of which condition the purport and substance were stated in the indictment, but the condition was not undertaken to be set out verbatim; the indictment did not show, nor was it necessary it should show, that the condition had any date; and therefore that the bond was correctly described in the indictment.

Opinion:
The Court (Strong, Sedgwick, Sewall, and Thacker, justices) inclined to think that the indictment was right, and admitted the bond in evidence ; * saying that if it was not legally admissible, it might be set right hereafter ; (meaning, it is presumed, that, in case of a conviction, the defendant might move for a new trial for the mistake of the Court.)
The jury found the defendant not guilty.