Respublica v. Keating 1 Dall. 110, 1 U.S. 110

OCTOBER SESSIONS, 1784.

Respublica v. Keating.

Witness.

On .to indictment for forging a promissory note, the supposed indorser is competent to preve the forgery.

Luke Keating was indicted for forging a promissory note, payable to John Meng, with a forged indorsement of John Meng & Co.

Lewis, for the defendant,

objected to the admission of Meng’s testimony; contending, that if Meng could prove that the note was false, it would discharge him from the payment; and if he proved it to be a genuine note, his evidence might be given against him, in a civil action founded upon the note; in either event, he was an interested witness, and, consequently, an incompetent one. Salk. 283; Hardr. 331; 2 Hawk. 433; Str. 728, 1043, 1104.

Lngersoll (who prosecuted on this occasion for the Attorney-General) argued,

that, to prevent an interruption and failure of justice, and the escape of offenders, the injured person was, in all cases of indictment, a competent witness. Vent. 49, 78; Vin., tit. Evid., pl. 26; 2 Str. 1229, and Abrahams v. Bunn, 4 Burr. 2252, establish this doctrine. He insisted, that the evidence given by Meng, on the present trial, could not affect him in a civil action; and observed, that if anything relative to tne civil action should decide the case before the court, the probability was, that Meng’s testimony would be favorable to the prisoner; for if Meng swears the note to be false, he can gain nothing; but if he proves it to be true, he testifies against his own interest.

Lewis, in reply,

acknowledged that the evidence given on this trial, could not be offered in favor of Meng on another ; but he urged, that if the note itself were proved to be forged, it might be detained by the court, and not suffered afterwards to be sued; on *the same principle, that it is r*-,-,-, said in 6 Co. 45, “ the court will damn a bond, on which the obligee *- has recovered.”