Commonwealth v. Morse
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
At the last April term, the defendant was indicted for that he, at a day and place named, “ falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully obtained, had, and kept in his possession, one certain false and forged piece of paper, purporting to be a true and genuine promissory note of hand for money, issued by a corporation duly and legally established by law under the denomination of the Richmond Bank, and which was of the tenor following, viz.: — “ Five Dollars.
Read the full summary
At the last April term, the defendant was indicted for that he, at a day and place named, “ falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully obtained, had, and kept in his possession, one certain false and forged piece of paper, purporting to be a true and genuine promissory note of hand for money, issued by a corporation duly and legally established by law under the denomination of the Richmond Bank, and which was of the tenor following, viz.: — “ Five Dollars. No. 502. “I promise to pay N. Wells, or bearer, on demand, five dollars. For the President, Directors, & Co., of the Richmond Bank. Richmond,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
By the 4th section of the statute referred to by the Attorney-General, it is made an offence to have in possession any forged note payable to bearer, made like to any note issued by any bank established by law in this or in any of the United States, with intent to pass it as a genuine note. Neither of the notes described in the indictment is within the description given by this section, as it is alleged that the defendant well knew that no such banks existed as are named in the indictment. Therefore, if the indictment had concluded against the statute, it could not have been…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Inhabitants of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- State v. BallerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1885
- Smith v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1812
- Wilcox v. WebbIndiana Supreme Court · 1823