United States v. Abel Turner

• Decision Date: 01 January 1833
• Citation: 32 U.S. 132,7 Pet. 132,8 L.Ed. 633
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. ABEL TURNER
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

32 U.S. 132

7 Pet. 132

8 L.Ed. 633

UNITED STATES v. ABEL TURNER.

January Term, 1833

CERTIFICATE of Division from the Circuit Court of North Carolina. The defendant, Abel Turner, was indicted at May term 1832, in the circuit court, under the 18th section of the act incorporating the Bank of the United States, passed in April 1816.

The indictment contained four counts. The first count charged the defendant with having forged and counterfeited a bill or note issued by the orders of the president, directors and company of the Bank of the United States, the tenor of which said false, forged and counterfeited paper writing was as follows, to wit: 'The president, directors and company of the Bank of the United States promise to pay twenty dollars, on demand, at their office of discount and deposit, in Fayetteville, to the order of D. Anderson, cashier thereof—Philadelphia, the 4th of July 1827—John W. Sandford, cashier, John Huske, president'—with intent to defraud the president, directors and company of the Bank of the United States, against the form of the act of congress, &c. The second count charged the defendant with an attempt to pass the said note, describing it in the same form, knowing it to be forged, with intent to defraud the Bank of the United States. The third count charged the offence of passing, uttering and publishing the same note, with intent to defraud the bank. The fourth and fifth counts charged the defendant with an attempt to pass, and with having passed the note to one Elliott, with intent to defraud him. The note was described in the counts in the same form and terms as in the first count. The jury found the defendant guilty on the fourth and fifth counts, and not guilty as to the residue.

Upon the trial of the cause, it occurred as a question, whether the attempt to pass the counterfeit bill, in the indictment mentioned knowing the same to be counterfeit, the said bill signed with the name of John Huske, who had not, at any time, been president of the Bank of the United States, but at the time of the date of the said counterfeit bill, was the president of the office of discount and deposit of the Bank of the United States, at Fayetteville, and countersigned with the name of John W. Sandford, who, at no time, was cashier of the Bank of the United States, but was, at the date aforesaid, cashier of the said office of discount and deposit, was an offence within the provisions of the act entitled an act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States: upon which question, the judges, being divided in opinion, ordered that the same should be certified to the supreme court of the United States for the opinion of that court.

The case was argued by the Attorney-General, for the United States; no counsel appeared for the defendant.

The Attorney-General stated, that the note described in the indictment, was in all respects the same as a note of the mother bank, excepting the signatures of the president and cashier of the bank. Instead of those signature, the names of the president and cashier of the branch bank at Fayetteville were affixed to the note. The question is, whether this bill came within the description in the 18th section of the act incorporating the bank, which punishes the offence charged as counterfeiting a bill or note issued by order of the bank? The question turns upon the interpretation of the 'purport' in the section. If the paper purports to be a bill or note of the bank, it is enough; although it may not be signed by the proper officers of the bank. The cases which have been decided in England fully maintain this position. They are found in 2 Russell on Crimes 338, 340, 342, 344-6, 363, 365-6, 456, 470-1; and in 10 Petersdorff's Abr. 55-6.

STORY, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court.

This cause comes before the court upon a certificate of division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court for the district of North Carolina. The defendant, Abel Turner, was indicted for the forgery of, and an attempt to pass, &c., a certain paper writing, in imitation of, and purporting to be, a bill or note issued by the president, directors and company of the Bank of the United States. The indictment contained several counts, all founded upon the 18th section of the act of the 10th of April 1816, ch. 44, establishing the Bank of the United States. Upon the trial of the cause, it occurred as a question, whether the attempt to pass the counterfeit bill in the indictment mentioned, knowing the same to be counterfeit, the said bill being signed with the name of John Huske, who had not, at any time, been president of the Bank of the United States, but at the time of the date of the said counterfeit bill, was the president of the office of discount and deposit of the Bank of the United States, at Fayetteville, and countersigned by the name of John W. Sandford, who, at no time, was cashier of the Bank of the United States, but was, at the date aforesaid, cashier of the said office of discount and deposit—was an offence within the provisions of the act. Upon this question the court, being divided in opinion, ordered the same to be certified to this court.

The bill or note itself is not set forth in hoec verba, except in the count on which the question arose, and which charges that the defendant, with force and arms, &c., 'feloniously did...