Case No. 14,884.

UNITED STATES v. CRANDELL.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 373.]¹

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1823.

WITNESS—INTEREST—INDICTMENT FOR FORGERY.

The person intended to be injured by a forgery, and the person whose name is forged to a certificate, are competent witnesses to prove the forgery. But, if the witness has paid money upon the forged paper, he is not competent to prove the forgery.

There were three indictments against the defendant [William Crandell] for forgery. In one he was charged with forging a certificate purporting to be signed by one Henry Naylor with intent to defraud one Holmead.

Mr. Key, for defendant, objected to Naylor and Holmead as witnesses for the prosecution.

THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent) overruled the objection. Upon another indictment against him for forgery, a witness was sworn who had paid five dollars upon the forged paper. THE COURT instructed the jury that he was not a competent witness (CRANCH, Chief Judge, doubting). Upon a third indictment for forging the name of G. Bomford to a bond, with intent to injure one Digges. Mr. Key, for defendant, objected to Digges as a witness, but the objection was overruled by THE COURT.

¹ [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

This volume of American Law was transcribed for use on the Internet
through a contribution from Google.