United States v. Anderson

4 D.C. 476

Opinion

The Court

(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] C. 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

United States v. Anderson, 4 D.C. 476 (circtddc 1834).

4 D.C. 476 (United States v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Respublica v. Ross
2 U.S. 239 (Supreme Court, 1795)
United States v. Brown
24 F. Cas. 1246 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1827)
United States v. Maxwell
26 F. Cas. 1221 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1809)
United States v. Porter
27 F. Cas. 595 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1812)