Commonwealth v. Ward
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The defendant was indicted at the last November term, in this county, for forging and uttering as true a promissory note, purporting to be the note of one Jonathan Ellis, payable to John Flanders, or order. Upon not guilty pleaded, he was tried before Parker, J., and convicted.
Read the full summary
The defendant was indicted at the last November term, in this county, for forging and uttering as true a promissory note, purporting to be the note of one Jonathan Ellis, payable to John Flanders, or order. Upon not guilty pleaded, he was tried before Parker, J., and convicted. The note produced on the trial appeared to be endorsed by Flanders, and, because the endorsement was not alleged in the indictment, G. Blake, of counsel for the defendant, objected to its going in evidence. His objection being overruled by the judge, he moves at this time for a new trial on the same ground.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
unanimously overruled the motion. (a)
Vide Commonwealth vs. Ross, ante, 373. — Rex vs. Testick, 1 East, 191.— Stark. Crim. Pl. 103, 104, 2d ed.—2 Russ. on Cr. 359, 360, 2d Lond. ed.
2Cited by15 opinions
- State v. HendersonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
- Santolini v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1895
- Perkins v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1851
- Commonwealth v. BondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- McDonnell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.