People v. Thompson
New York Supreme Court
The prisoner was convicted of forging and uttering an order for the payment of money. The paper set forth in the indictment was as follows: “ New-Port, 15th July, 1801. Captain Godfrey, sir, The bearer, Mr. Richardson, being our particular friend, who has occasion to proceed from New York to Philadelphia, we have requested him to call on you, desiring you to accept his draft on us, on demand, for fifteen dollars ; your compliance will much oblige, sir, Your humble servants,…
Read the full summary
The prisoner was convicted of forging and uttering an order for the payment of money. The paper set forth in the indictment was as follows: “ New-Port, 15th July, 1801. Captain Godfrey, sir, The bearer, Mr. Richardson, being our particular friend, who has occasion to proceed from New York to Philadelphia, we have requested him to call on you, desiring you to accept his draft on us, on demand, for fifteen dollars ; your compliance will much oblige, sir, Your humble servants, Gibbs and Channing.”
1Per curiam
Admitting the paper to be an order for the payment of money, it is not.an order of the kind intended by the act. It has long been settled in England, upon a similar statute, that the order within its purview, *must be one importing a right on the part of the person who is supposed to have made it, and a duty on0the part of the person on whom it is made: (1 Leach, 111, note.) That where it seems to leave compliance or refusal optional, and applies rather to the favor than the justice of the person on whom it is drawn, it is not within the statute, as not being an order on which the party…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. CooperSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1812