Commonwealth v. Stephenson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Stephenson

65 Mass. 481

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1853

StatusPublished

This text of 65 Mass. 481 (Commonwealth v. Stephenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Stephenson, 65 Mass. 481 (Mass. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

Dewey, J.

The instructions asked on the part of the defendant were properly refused. It is not necessary that there should be so perfect a resemblance to the genuine handwriting of the party whose name is forged as would impose on persons having particular knowledge of the handwriting of such party, nor is it necessary that the officers of the bank upon which a check purported to be drawn would have probably been misled and deceived by it. The intent to defraud the bank may exist, and may be found by the jury, though the officers of the bank, from their better acquaintance with the genuine handwriting of the drawer, would readily have detected the check as a counterfeit one. The authorities to this point may be found in 2 Hale P. C. 289, n. Mazagora’s case, Russ. & Ry. 291; Sheppard’s case, Russ. & Ry. 169 ; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 103.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dewey, J.

The instructions asked on the part of the defendant were properly refused. It is not necessary that there should be so perfect a resemblance to the genuine handwriting of the party whose name is forged as would impose on persons having particular knowledge of the handwriting of such party, nor is it necessary that the officers of the bank upon which a check purported to be drawn would have probably been misled and deceived by it. The intent to defraud the bank may exist, and may be found by the jury, though the officers of the bank, from their better acquaintance with the genuine handwriting of the drawer, would readily have detected the check as a counterfeit one. The authorities to this point may be found in 2 Hale P. C. 289, n. Mazagora’s case, Russ. & Ry. 291; Sheppard’s case, Russ. & Ry. 169 ; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 103.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Mass. 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-stephenson-mass-1853.