1779.
writing, is in the words and figures following to wit “3 Rec’d 1ſt July 1777 of Col. B. Flower, C. G. M. S. one thouſand and twenty pounds 15ſ. for 820 bayonet bolts and 920 cartouch boxes for the uſe of the army.£ 1020—15Adam Foulk.(he the ſaid Cornelius Sweers, at the time of publiſhing the ſaid falſe and counterfeit writing there by him in form aforeſaid, well knowing the ſaid writing to have been falſely forged and counterfeited as aforeſaid,) to the evil example of all others in like caſe offending, to the great damage of the ſaid United States, and againſt the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennſylvania.”
The priſoner being brought before the Court to receive ſentence, M’Kean, Chief Juſtice, addreſſed 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 ſtated in the firſt indictment is that of altering a receipt given by Margaret Duncan; and the charge contained in the ſecond indictment, is that of forging a receipt, purporting to be the receipt of Adam Foulke. Your council have taken ſeveral exceptions to the from and ſubſtance of theſe indictments, upon a motion of arreſt of judgment.
The firſt 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 aſſociation, the United States neceſſarily became a body corporate; for, there was no ſuperior from whom that character could otherwiſe be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or ſtatute, by which they were expreſsly ſo created. An indictment, however, may be ſufficiently maintained upon “an intent to deceive my liege ſubjects;” and to that purpoſe there is a poſitive authority, not referred to by the council, where a perſon was indicted, for having in his cuſtody a piece of baſe metal, in the ſimilitude of a ſix-pence, knowing it to be baſe, with intent to defraud the liege ſubjects &c.
The ſecond exception was, “that the charges in the indictments were not direct and poſitive but only argumentative.” One this point we cannot heſitate to declare, that the charges appear to us to be as direct and poſitive, as it was poſſible to expreſs them.
The third exception was, “that the indictments do not charge that any perſon was actually defrauded.” But in the King verſus Webb 2 Ld. Ray. 1461, all the Judges declared, that if the cheat be prejudicial, that is, of ſuch a nature as may prejudice, an indict
