United States v. Bush

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

United States v. Bush

2 D.C. 294

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedApril 15, 1822

StatusPublished

This text of 2 D.C. 294 (United States v. Bush) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Bush, 2 D.C. 294 (circtddc 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

decided that the acquittal upon the former indictment was not a bar to the present; being of opinion that the exception taken to the former indictment was fatal. See 1 Chitty, Cr. Law, 455.

The prisoner’s counsel also contended that the instrument forged was not an order within the English decisions upon the English Statute of 7 Geo. 2, c. 22; Mitchel's case, 2 East, Cr. Law, 936, and William's ease, and Eller's case, 1 Leach, Cr. Law.

But the Court said, that upon that point he might move in arrest of judgment if the prisoner should be convicted. See Bates's case, in this Court, June term, 1810, (ante, 1,) upon the Act of Maryland, 1799, c. 75, § 2, in which the Court decided that the words “ draft for the payment of money or delivery of goods,” included such an order as the present. Verdict, guilty.

Motion in arrest of judgment overruled.

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

The Court

decided that the acquittal upon the former indictment was not a bar to the present; being of opinion that the exception taken to the former indictment was fatal. See 1 Chitty, Cr. Law, 455.

The prisoner’s counsel also contended that the instrument forged was not an order within the English decisions upon the English Statute of 7 Geo. 2, c. 22; Mitchel's case, 2 East, Cr. Law, 936, and William's ease, and Eller's case, 1 Leach, Cr. Law.

But the Court said, that upon that point he might move in arrest of judgment if the prisoner should be convicted. See Bates's case, in this Court, June term, 1810, (ante, 1,) upon the Act of Maryland, 1799, c. 75, § 2, in which the Court decided that the words “ draft for the payment of money or delivery of goods,” included such an order as the present. Verdict, guilty.

Motion in arrest of judgment overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 D.C. 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bush-circtddc-1822.