Case No. 16,772.

UNITED STATES v. WEIGHT.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 68.]¹

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1812.

FORGERY—BANK—NOTES.

Possession of forged bank-notes, with intent to utter them as true, is not an indictable offence.

Indictment [against Walter Wright] for knowingly having in his possession forged bank-notes with intent to utter them as true.

Mr. Wallach and Mr. Law, for defendant, moved the court to quash the indictment; because: 1. It is only an intent to commit a crime, which intent is not indictable. Rex v. Higgins, 2 East, 5; 4 Bl. Comm. 21; St. 41 Geo. III. c. 39; East, P. C. 881. 2. It does not charge an unlawful intent to injure any person. Nothing can be inferred. At common law it is no crime simply to make a false bank-note unless some person be injured. 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 70, § 11; Rex v. Wheatly, 2 Burrows, 1127; Rex v. Munoz, 2 Strange, 1127. 3. It does not set forth the notes in haec verba. Mason's Case, East, P. C. 975; Com. v. Morse, 2 Mass. 138.

Mr. Jones, contra. An inchoate act towards the consummation of a crime is indictable. Rex v. Higgins, 2 East, 5. There is a form of such an indictment in C. Cir. Comp. p. 286, for having counterfeit money in his possession with intent to utter it. This court in the case of U. S. v. Williams [Case No. 16,709], decided that in an indictment for forgery, it is not necessary to set forth the forged instrument in haec verba.

THE COURT having some doubt, refused to quash the indictment; but after verdict, arrested the judgment.

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.