Pennsylvania v. Misner
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County
MISNER was indicted—1. For forging an assignment to William, Irwin, of a bill given by Misner himself and James Read, to Eneas Randall. 2. For uttering this assignment, knowing it to be forged. The evidence was that Misner having in his possession a single bill on himself and Read, assigned it, in Randall’s name, for goods, to Irwin, who knew neither of them, and supposed him to be Randall Irwin sued Read before a justice, and recovered, on this bill.
Read the full summary
MISNER was indicted—1. For forging an assignment to William, Irwin, of a bill given by Misner himself and James Read, to Eneas Randall. 2. For uttering this assignment, knowing it to be forged. The evidence was that Misner having in his possession a single bill on himself and Read, assigned it, in Randall’s name, for goods, to Irwin, who knew neither of them, and supposed him to be Randall Irwin sued Read before a justice, and recovered, on this bill. It was also proved, that an order drawn by James Read, in favour of Henry Misner, for nearly the same sum, on James O’Hara, had been presented…
1Opinion of the Court
President.
1. There is no evidence in what manner the person named Enos Randole in the body of the bill, who is the payee, really writes his name, for there is no evidence, that the bill was written by him. But if there were, the variance is so inconsiderable, that if the defendant were to escape under it, any man might accomplish all the dangerous effects of forgery, without risking the punishment. The variance makes not another name, but the same, for all purposes of deception.
2. It is equally criminal to forge a name, as to forge a seal, if there be an intention and possibility to defraud.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Act Now to Stop War & End Racism Coalition v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
- State v. FleshmanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
- Webster v. ShulkinCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017