merchandise be, after judgment, forthwith returned to such claimant or claimants, his, her, or their agent or agents.
Officers of the treasury to allow the collector of New York for certain sums recovered of him, &c.
1792, ch. 1.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the accounting officers of the treasury be, and they are hereby authorized and directed to allow to the collector of New York, in the settlement of his accounts, the amount of damages and costs recovered from and paid by him, by virtue of judgments rendered in the supreme court of the state of New York, on account of the seizure of the ship Liberty, and of the ship Two Marys; which vessels had been seized and libelled for a presumed infraction of the provisions of the act, intituled “An act concerning the registering and recording of ships or vessels.”
Approved, February 24, 1807.
Statute ⅠⅠ.
Chap. XX.—An Act to punish frauds committed on the Bank of the United States.[1]
Punishment for falsely making, forging, or counterfeiting notes of the Bank of the U. States.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if any person shall falsely make, forge, or counterfeit, or cause or procure to be falsely made, forged or counterfeited, or willingly aid or assist in falsely making, forging or counterfeiting any bill or note in imitation of, or purporting to be a bill or note issued by order of the president, directors and company of the Bank of the United States, or any order or check on the said bank or corporation, or any cashier thereof, or shall falsely alter, or cause or procure to be falsely altered, or willingly aid or assist in falsely altering any bill or note issued by order of the president, directors and company of the Bank of the United States, or any order or check, on the said bank or corporation, or any cashier thereof, or shall pass, utter
- ↑ Indictment in the circuit court of North Carolina, for the forging of, and an attempt to pass a certain paper writing in imitation of, and purporting to be, a bill or note issued by the president and directors of the Bank of the United States, provided in the 18th section of the act of 1816, establishing the Bank of the United States. The note was signed with the name of “John Huske,” who had not been at any time president of the Bank of the United States; but who at the date of the counterfeiting was president of the office of discount at Fayetteville; and was countersigned by the name of “John W. Sanford,” who at no time was cashier of the mother Bank, but was at the said date cashier of the said office of discount and deposit. Held, that this was an offence within the provisions of the law. United States v. Turner, 7 Peters, 132.Indictment on the 18th section of the act of Congress, entitled “An act to incorporate the Bank of the United States,” passed April 15, 1816. The indictment charged the defendant with uttering and forging “a counterfeit bill in imitation of a bill used by the president, &c., of the bank.” The forged paper was in these words and figures: “Cashier of the Bank of the United States, pay C. W. Earnest or order, five dollars. Office of discount and deposit in Pittsburg, 10th day of December, 1829. A. Brackenridge, Pres’t, J. Correy, Cash’r.” “Pay bearer, C. W. Earnest.” Held, that a genuine instrument of which the forged and counterfeited instrument is an imitation, is not a bill issued by order of the president of the Bank of the United States, according to the true intent and meaning of the 18th section of the act incorporating the bank. The United States v. Brewster, 7 Peters, 164.Counterfeiting an indorsement on a post note of the Bank of the United States, is not an offence under the 18th section of the act incorporating the bank. United States v. Stewart, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 226.In a prosecution for forging the notes of the Bank of the United States, it is not necessary to prove that it was committed with intention to defraud some corporation or person, and that the notes stated in the indictment, and given in evidence as forged, and those alleged to be forged, are the same. United States v. Reuben Moses, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 726.An order on the cashier of the Bank of the United States, is evidence for supporting an indictment for forging an order on the cashier of the corporation of the Bank of the United States. United States v. Hinman, Baldwin’s C. C. R. 292.
If a suit be brought against the seizing officer for a supposed trespass in making a seizure of a vessel for a supposed forfeiture, while the suit is depending, the fact of such pendency may be pleaded in abatement, or as a temporary bar to the action; if after a decree of condemnation, then that fact may be pleaded as a bar; if after an acquittal without a certificate of probable cause, then the officer is without any justification for the seizure, and it is definitively settled to be a tortious act. Gelston et al. v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; 4 Cond. Rep. 244.
To justify a seizure there must be probable cause of seizure; and if an officer of the customs seize without probable cause, no indictment lies for resisting him in the seizure, for he is not in the execution of his office. United States v. Gay, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 359.Seizures for breach of municipal laws, are made at the peril of the seizers. If made without probable cause, the seizers are liable for all the consequences; for the act is construed a tortious act, and his diligence for the preservation of the property, is no defence against losses occasioned by the superior force, or inevitable casualty. Burke v. Trevitt, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 96.