Court Opinion

ID: 8315884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 20:01:12.148306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:56.035227
License: Public Domain

The Court
(nem. con.') still rejected the testimony of Mr. Dorsey, because he was offered to prove a fact tending to prove the forgery.
See Porter’s case, in this Court, in 1812, (2 Cranch, C. C. 60,) where Jenkins, the person cheated, was examined as a witness for the prosecution. 2 Hawk. 433; 1 Raym. 396; Rex v. Whiting, M’Nally, 105, 124; Maxwell’s case, in this Court, (1 Cranch, *477C. C. 605;) Peake’s Ev. 94; Abrahams v. Bunn, 4 Burr. 2255; Smith v. Prager, 7 T. R. 60; Bent v. Baker, 3 Id. 27; Resp v. Ross, 2 Dall. 239. See Hardres, 331; 1 Salk. 283, 286; Str. 728, 1043; 1 Vent. 49; 2 Hawk. c. 46, §§ 24, 25; Str. 1229; M’Nally, 121; Peake, L. E. 96, 116; 4 Starkie, 770, 771; and the following cases in this Court: United States v. Suter, November, 1807; Bayne’s case, December, 1830; Brown’s case, December, 1827, (3 Cranch, C. C. 268;) Bates’s case, April, 1823, 2 Id. 405, and June, 1810; Moxley’s case, December, 1812. Id. 64.