Majority
p. 21The People, vs. Nicholas O’Bryan.
Headnote
In suspic_ cases, the í^uit. ST°hey must_ have satisfactory proof,On Counterfeit Notes.
Nicholas O’Bryan was charged with having in his possession two $3 counterfeit bank-notes, of the Bank Hartford, with an intention to pass them, knowing they were counterfeit.
The facts of the case appeared to be these: from information given to the police officers, they were instructed to
p. 22called Eliza Collins : she testified on the part of the prisoner, that she was in his house while he was in Bridewell, for an assault and battery committed upon his wife. She swore she saw a Mr. Cadwell pay to the prisoner’s wife, for rent, the two $3 notes complained of. She was certain they were the same notes set forth in the indictment. observed that he had no disposition to press the case: it had become doubtful by the testimony of Eliza Collins, who, if she told the truth, certainly made out a satisfactory explanation to this charge.
go to O’Bryan’s house, they found him in the yard, with the two notes described in the indictment, rolled up in his» hand ; and immediately seized and forcibly took the notes out °f his possession, which proved to be counterfeit: he brought to the police office and committed for trial.
The witnesses for the prosecution proved the notes spurious, and the possession of them by the prisoner.
M’Euen for the prisoner,
Maxwell, District Attorney,
“Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe “ the facts sworn to by the witness, you must acquit the « prisoner. He has explained how he got possession of the “ notes charged upon him: although the testimony is sus- “ picious, yet we cannot make out the prisoner’s guilt, “ without positive and satisfactory proof, which appears “ to be wanting in this case. The witness says, that she “ saw O’Bryan’s wife receive the money, in his absence, “ and there has nothing yet appeared to show she has not “ sworn the truth.”
The jury found the prisqner not guilty.