United States v. Long

• Decision Date: 05 February 1887
• Citation: 30 F. 678
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. LONG.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

30 F. 678

UNITED STATES v. LONG.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Georgia, Eastern Division.

February 5, 1887

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Forgery is the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing, to the prejudice of another man's right.

In order to find the intent to defraud a particular person, it is not necessary that there should be evidence to show that the accused had that particular person in contemplation at the time of the forgery. It is sufficient if the forgery would have the effect of defrauding him.

One may be guilty of forgery if he fraudulently signs his name although it is identical with the name of the person who should have signed.

If the accused falsely represented himself to be the payee of the money-order, it is a circumstance tending to impeach his good faith, and such misrepresentation may be as well effected by acts as by words. Thus, if he presented himself before the paying official, and, presenting the order, signed it as if he were the person for whom it was intended, he as well defrauds as if he had declared himself to be the payee.

If the prosecution relies on the confession alone, the prisoner is entitled to the full effect of a portion of the confession which goes in his favor; but the prosecution may contradict by evidence such portion of the confession, and the jury may convict, notwithstanding it, if all the evidence taken together warrants that finding.

Dupont Guerry, U.S. Atty., for the Government.

James Atkins, for prisoner.

SPEER J.,

(charging jury.) A useful, and indeed an essential, branch of the postal service of the government is the transmission of funds by means of 'money-orders.' The law provides that, to promote public convenience, and to insure greater security in the transfer of money through the mails, the postmaster general may establish and maintain, under such rules and regulations as he may deem expedient, a uniform money-order system at all suitable post-offices. A money-order is an order for a specified sum of money, not less than one cent nor greater than fifty dollars, made out at a money-order office, on a blank form prescribed by law and the post-office regulations, and payable at some other money-order office. The person who purchases the money-order is known as the remitter, and the person to whom it is payable as the payee. A money-order is issued along with what is termed in the postal service a letter of advice. This is a letter or notice, partly printed and partly written, bearing the same number and date as its corresponding money-order, and is issued to the paying postmaster, for the purpose of informing the latter as to the name and residence of the remitter and the payee of the order. It is used to assist the paying postmaster in the identification of the payee of the order. You will have in evidence a specimen of the papers, and you already understand their nature. To protect the integrity of its money-orders, the following statute has been enacted by the government:

'Any person who shall, with intent to defraud, * * * forge * * * any order in imitation of or proporting to be a money-order issued by the post-office department, or any of its postmasters or agents, or any material signature or indorsement thereon; * * * any person who shall, with intent to defraud, pass, utter, or publish * * * as true any such false, forged, or altered money-order, knowing the same, or any signature or indorsement thereon, to be false, * * * shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than two years, and not more than five years.'

And the accused is charged by indictment with the violation of this law. There are two counts in the indictment; the first charging the forgery of a material signature,-- that of John G. Long, the payee of the order,-- and the other charging that the prisoner, with intent to defraud, passed the forged money-order, knowing the same to be forged. The prisoner pleads not guilty, and thus is formed the issue which you are trying. You will attend, gentlemen, to the instructions of law which I will now give you.

Forgery is defined by Sir William Blackstone to be the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing, to the prejudice of another man's right. 4 Comm. 247. In order to find the intent to defraud a particular person, it is not necessary that there should be evidence to show that the accused had that particular person in contemplation at the time of the forgery. It is sufficient if the forgery would have the effect of defrauding him. Roscoe, Crim. Ev. 505. In the case of a paper like this, if there is sufficient proof that the paper has been forged, and the question is, who did the forgery? a strong presumption necessarily arises against the party in whose favor the forgery is made, or who has the possession of it, and seeks to derive benefit from it. One may be guilty of forgery if he fraudulently signs his name although it is identical with that of the person who should have signed. Thus, if a bill of exchange is payable to A. B., or order, and it comes to the hand of a person named A. B. who is not the payee, and who fraudulently indorses it for the purpose of obtaining the money, this is a forgery. To apply to this case: If this money-order had been payable to John A. Long, and it came by mistake of the mails or otherwise to the hands of the prisoner, John A. Long, who, knowing it was not intended for him, but for another John A. Long, indorsed it, or signed the receipt for it, with the fraudulent purpose to get the money on it, he would be guilty of forgery. Much more, then, would he be guilty if he fraudulently signed the name of John G. Long. This fraudulent purpose may be sufficiently proven by his acts; and if the facts are sufficient to put him on notice of the fact that the money-order was intended for another, and not for him, then the consequence of his act is to defraud the other; and one is presumed to intend the consequences of his own acts. If the accused falsely represented himself to be the payee of the money-order,...