Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Tyl. 260

State v. A. W.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided September 15, 1801

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1801-09-15

THIS was an indictment for forging a promissory-note contra formara statuti. On trial the promisor of the note was offered as a witness on behalf of the State, The counsel for the prisoner objected to his competency. It has been uniformly decided, that on an indictment for forgery under the 5th Eliz. c. 14. the person injured, or, as the statute expresses it, aggrieved, by the forgery, cannot be a witness on the trial.

Decided 1801-09-15

Per Curiam.

¶1It has been invariably decided in this Court, that “ the party aggrieved” by a forgery cannot be a witness against a person indicted for the crime. It is a general rule, that where the law gives a compensation to the sufferer by a crime, the person injured cannot be admitted as a witness to convict the accused. It is no exception to this rule, that the person from whom goods are stolen, though entitled to treble damages by the statute, may be admitted to testify on the trial of one charged with the theft; for he is only permitted to testify as to the possession and loss of property, not that the accused stole it, or that it was found in his possession, or indeed to any other circumstances, which may go to cúlpate the person on trial; and this ex necessitate rei; for the possession and loss of valuable property, money for *262instance, may be frequently only known to the owner.

William Mattocks, for the State.Tyler, for the defendant.

¶2Witness incompetent.

¶3Verdict not guilty,

/1/tyl/260 · .json · Public domain