Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/55

 44 writing, is in the words and figures following to wit “3 Rec’d 1t July 1777 of Col. B. Flower, C. G. M. S. one thouand and twenty pounds 15. for 820 bayonet bolts and 920 cartouch boxes for the ue of the army. £ 1020—15

(he the aid Cornelius Sweers, at the time of publihing the aid fale and counterfeit writing there by him in form aforeaid, well knowing the aid writing to have been falely forged and counterfeited as aforeaid,) to the evil example of all others in like cae offending, to the great damage of the aid United States, and againt the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennylvania.”

The prioner being brought before the Court to receive entence,, Chief Jutice, addreed him to the following effect:

Cornelius Sweers:—After a fair and full trial, you have been convicted of the crime of Forgery, upon two indictments, by a Special Jury of your country. The offence tated in the firt indictment is that of altering a receipt given by Margaret Duncan; and the charge contained in the econd indictment, is that of forging a receipt, purporting to be the receipt of Adam Foulke. Your council have taken everal exceptions to the from and ubtance of thee indictments, upon a motion of arret of judgment.

The firt exception was, “that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not a body corporate known in law.” But the Court are of a different opinion. From the moment of their aociation, the United States necearily became a body corporate; for, there was no uperior from whom that character could otherwie be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or tatute, by which they were expresly o created. An indictment, however, may be ufficiently maintained upon “an intent to deceive my liege ubjects;” and to that purpoe there is a poitive authority, not referred to by the council, where a peron was indicted, for having in his cutody a piece of bae metal, in the imilitude of a ix-pence, knowing it to be bae, with intent to defraud the liege ubjects &c.

The econd exception was, “that the charges in the indictments were not direct and poitive but only argumentative.” One this point we cannot heitate to declare, that the charges appear to us to be as direct and poitive, as it was poible to expres them.

The third exception was, “that the indictments do not charge that any peron was actually defrauded.” But in the King verus Webb 2 ''Ld. Ray.'' 1461, all the Judges declared, that if the cheat be prejudicial, that is, of uch a nature as may prejudice, an indict ment