The prisoner was indicted1 for forgery. The indictment contained two counts, but omflic second the Solicitor for the State entered a nolle prosequi. Held: that the false instrument was not a forgery, because it lacked a main ingredient of forgery, viz: the capacity to “ defraud it could not “ defraud or prejudice” the right of the plaintiff’s testator, or the plaintiff himself, because the debt to lohich the receipt was applicable had been actually paid.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1847-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1970
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
A subscribing witness is not material to the due making of a bond. The putting of the name of Stubbs to the instrument, as a subscribing witness, did not vitiate the bond, after it was subsequently delivered by the obligors to the obligee. The bond could have been established (if denied by the obligors) by proof of their hand-writing.
Blackwell
v.
Lane,
4 Dev. & Bat. 113. It was not an alteration In a material part of a true document, by which the obligee was or could be defrauded of the money mentioned in the face of the bond. We think the judgment was right.
