Case Name: State v. Blodget
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1793
Citations: 1 Root 534
Docket Number: 
Parties: State v. Blodget.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 534–534

Head Matter:
State v. Blodget.
On an information for a forgery, the person in whose name it is charged to he done, cannot he a witness.
Ordinarily, the writing is to he produced before the evidence is taken to the forgery.
INFORMATION for forging a discharge. Tbe defendant plead not guilty. Issue to tbe jury.
Smith, in whose name said discharge was given, was offered a witness, but not admitted. See State v. Brownson, Litchfield, August Term, A. D. 1791.

Opinion:
By the Court.
In ordinary cases tbe writing charged to be a forgery, must be produced in court, before any evidence can be admitted concerning tbe facts. The attorney for tbe state not being able to produce tbe writing entered a nol. pros. See State v. Osborn, New Haven, January Term, A. D. 1790.