Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/246

 245 Casas ruled and adjudged in the ` t79;. razg. `Hmlr. 33 r. 2 Hawk. P. C. 6 ro. cb. 46. pt?. 24. VV" Lead:. C. L. ag. Nor does his interelt relt merely on the ea ventual refpnniibility of his lignature ;-·—it is directly involved in the conviciion of the defendant ; lince, by two acts of Af- fcmbly, he is intitled, upon that event, to a forfeiture; the lirlh act inflicting a forfeiture of double the value, one half to go to the party wronged; and the fecond acl: inlli&ing a penalty of treble the value, to the ufe of the party wronged. See 1 VaL DML Edit. p. S. 64. The Counfel for the profecution an fwered thefe objections, to the followin eflecl. tl!. In the prefent cafe, the inrliclment alledges, that the name of  Heyfer is not fubferibcd to the note; this is the fact in controverfy ; and he, who is the only politive witnefs that can b-: produced, is offered to difprove the iignature. But, on the contrary, all the cafes cited, proceed up- on the ground, that the witncfs,confeli`edly, figncd the inltru- ment, which he is called upon to difcredit. 2d. yqepb He} ter is not interelted in the prcfent cafe ; for the record will not j be evidence in a civil a&ion, brought againll him as drawer of ‘ the note. Nor is he interelled under the a€ts of Alfembly that have been cited, as the forfeitures impofed by thofe acts are abolilhed by the exifting code of Penal Laws. Bu·l. N. P. 288. 4 Burr. zzgr. 3 EIZ Rep. 36. r Vent. 49. The deeilions in Pznniilwnia have been uniform in the admillion of fuch witnefs- es. r DalI.Rep. rro. 62. Rea. v. Cbqprmm fs' Bam before the Recorder {Chew) in the Mayor’s Court of Phi/adeylbia r·]72. Smitlfs cafe in the Qrarter Seflions of Nbrtbnmptan County. Sb¢pbrrd’s cafe before me Recorder { Wi!.:::l·.r) in the Mayor’s Court; i M¢KaArr, C:3ifj%y7i::. Two objeclions have been taken to the competency of _7¢·pl¤ He·g%’cr, as a witnefs on the prefent indictment :-ifi. Becaufe his name appears to he fubfcribed to the note, which his evidence is intended to prove a forgery; and ad. Becaufe he is interelted. The jig/} objection has been well, and fufliciently, anfwercd, by the remark, that whether the name of the witnefs is really fubferibed to the note, or not, is the fact in controverfy, which the jury mult decide. If the lignature was allowed to be his, the objcclion would then, undoubtedly, be fatal. On thcjwmd objection, I do not think, that the witnefs is fo intcrellcd, as to render him incompetent. The verdi& in the prefent cafe could not be received in evidence upon the trial of a civil action; nor would the Court permit the counfel to refer to it. I confefs, however, that early in life, I entertained _a different opinion on this point, conceiving then, that the weight of the adjudged cafes was advcrii: to the competency of the wit- nefs, though Itlwught i: hard that the law fhculd be lb. _ My ‘ opinion

�