4 D.C. 476 (C.C.D.C. 1834), 14,452, United States v. Anderson

Docket Nº:14,452[1]
Citation:4 D.C. 476, 24 F.Cas. 815
Attorney:Mr. Brent, for defendant,

Page 476

4 D.C. 476 (C.C.D.C. 1834)

24 F.Cas. 815




No. 14,452 [1]

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

November Term, 1834

Indictment [against John Anderson] for forging an order in the name of Mr. Dorsey, who was called as a witness for the United States.

Mr. Brent, for defendant, objects, and contends that no person, interested in setting aside the instrument, is competent as a witness, to prove the forgery. 2 Russ. 374; 4 Starkie 573, 582, 583. In those states where a contrary doctrine prevails, it is by statute; and in England there is a late statute (9 Geo. IV. c. 32) permitting such testimony; which statute would have been unnecessary if it could be permitted by the common law. Ross's Case, 2 Dall. [ 2 U. S.] 239; Keating's Case, 1 Dall. [ 1 U. S.] 110; 10 Petersd. Abr. 70.

THE COURT (hesitans) rejected the witness.

Mr. Key, for the United States, offered again to examine Mr. Dorsey, upon a collateral question, and contended that he was competent to prove any fact except that the signature is not his. Rex v. Boston, 4 East, 582.

THE COURT (nem. con.) still rejected the testimony of Mr. Dorsey, because he was offered to prove a fact tending to prove the forgery.

NOTE. See U. S. v. Porter [Case No. 16,072], in this court, in 1812, where Jenkins, the person cheated, was examined as a witness for the prosecution. 2 Hawk. P. C. 610; Rex v. Whiting, 1 Ld. Raym. 396; McNally, Ev. 105, 124; U. S. v. Maxwell [Case No. 15,749], in this court. Peake, Ev. 94; Abrahams v. Bunn, 4 Burrows 2255; Smith v. Prager, 7 Term R. 60; Bent v....

To continue reading