United States v. Anderson
This text of 4 D.C. 476 (United States v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
(nem. con.') still rejected the testimony of Mr. Dorsey, because he was offered to prove a fact tending to prove the forgery.
See Porter’s case, in this Court, in 1812, (2 Cranch, C. C. 60,) where Jenkins, the person cheated, was examined as a witness for the prosecution. 2 Hawk. 433; 1 Raym. 396; Rex v. Whiting, M’Nally, 105, 124; Maxwell’s case, in this Court, (1 Cranch, [477]*477C. C. 605;) Peake’s Ev. 94; Abrahams v. Bunn, 4 Burr. 2255; Smith v. Prager, 7 T. R. 60; Bent v. Baker, 3 Id. 27; Resp v. Ross, 2 Dall. 239. See Hardres, 331; 1 Salk. 283, 286; Str. 728, 1043; 1 Vent. 49; 2 Hawk. c. 46, §§ 24, 25; Str. 1229; M’Nally, 121; Peake, L. E. 96, 116; 4 Starkie, 770, 771; and the following cases in this Court: United States v. Suter, November, 1807; Bayne’s case, December, 1830; Brown’s case, December, 1827, (3 Cranch, C. C. 268;) Bates’s case, April, 1823, 2 Id. 405, and June, 1810; Moxley’s case, December, 1812. Id. 64.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 D.C. 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-anderson-circtddc-1834.