59 Mass. 605 - Commonwealth v. Taylor — 59 Mass. 605

Commonwealth vs. Milo A. Taylor. The number and check letter of a forged bank-bill, and the words in the margin, need not be set forth in an indictment for uttering and passing it as true. Dn a trial at Northampton, for uttering as true a forged bank-bill, purporting to be a bill of a bank at Worcester, a witness having testified that he knew the president of that bank; that when the witness last saw him, which was something less than a year before, he lived in Worcester; and that he then told the witness that his wife had bought a place in Oxford, in this state, and his family were going there to reside; it was held, that upon this evidence, the testimony of the president might be dispensed with, and the forgery of his signature allowed to be proved by other witnesses, within the Rev. Sts. c. 127, § 10. A confession or admission by one under arrest on a criminal charge, to the officer having him in custody, made the day after the party had been told by the officer, that “ he could make him no promises, but if he made any disclosures that would be of benefit to the government, the officer would use his influence to have it go in his favor," is not admissible in evidence against such party; although the officer testifies, that he thought the statement was voluntary, and would have been made, if the inducements of the day before had not been held out; and although the judge instructed the jury, that if the statement was not