State v. A. W.
Supreme Court of Vermont
THIS was an indictment for forging a promissory-note contra formara statuti. On trial the promisor of the note was offered as a witness on behalf of the State, The counsel for the prisoner objected to his competency. It has been uniformly decided, that on an indictment for forgery under the 5th Eliz. c. 14. the person injured, or, as the statute expresses it, aggrieved, by the forgery, cannot be a witness on the trial.
Read the full summary
THIS was an indictment for forging a promissory-note contra formara statuti. On trial the promisor of the note was offered as a witness on behalf of the State, The counsel for the prisoner objected to his competency. It has been uniformly decided, that on an indictment for forgery under the 5th Eliz. c. 14. the person injured, or, as the statute expresses it, aggrieved, by the forgery, cannot be a witness on the trial. The reason is given by Sergeant Hawkins in his Pleas of the Crown, vol. 2. c. 46. because he may have an action on the statute. . Our statute against forgery is grounded on the…
1Per curiam
It has been invariably decided in this Court, that “ the party aggrieved” by a forgery cannot be a witness against a person indicted for the crime. It is a general rule, that where the law gives a compensation to the sufferer by a crime, the person injured cannot be admitted as a witness to convict the accused. It is no exception to this rule, that the person from whom goods are stolen, though entitled to treble damages by the statute, may be admitted to testify on the trial of one charged with the theft; for he is only permitted to testify as to the possession and loss of property, not that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hess v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1831
- People v. DeanNew York Supreme Court · 1826