
    The People vs. Andrew Haggerty.
    h i® unnecessary to set forth the ent0notein the indict-
    of the °f a Pf1®' counterfeit 111 ,his oss cssiotij evidence that them to be forgeries that he had knowing they rfnt0 Pas® them, may be inferred by ‘{¡® Evidence
    
      Counterfeit Notes,
    
    Andrew Haggerty was arraigned on a charge of having in his possession, with intention to utter, counterfeit notes r ’ ’ of the Eagle Bank in New Haven, to which he UOt guilty. »
    mi • The circumstances attending this case were as follows: Messrs, Homan, Hays, Raymond, and Connell, went the house of Nick O’Bryan, for the purpose of searching for stolen goods. Upon Mr. Hays’ going into the front room, he saw the prisoner there : he appeared to be fused, and reached his hand from his pocket to his mouth, apparently for the purpose of consealing something in Mr. Hays seized him by the throat and choked him for (some time, and the other officers coming to his assistance, ° ’ they effectually prevented his swallowing any thing he might have in his mouth. He struggled for some and finally succeeded in releasing one of his arms from the officers, and reached it to'his mouth and threw thing in a sand barrel that was standing by the door 17. . , ^ „ Upon looking into the barrel, three 3 dollar counterfeit notes of the Eagle Bank in New Haven, were found pressed together as if by the teeth ; they were warm, and wet with blood and tobacco juice, These facts being proved by the officers who made the arrest, Maxwell, District Attorney, rested the case,
    
      Price, counsel for the prisoner,
    objected to the indictment, that the engraver’s name to the note was not set forth in the indictment.
   The Court decided against the objection, and the examination was read.

Price then contended that the three following propositions must b.e proved,

1. That he had the notes in his possession.

2. That he knew them to be forgeries.

3. That he had them in his possession knoAving they forgeries, with intent to pass them.

The Court agreed with the counsel for the prisoner, but left it to the jury to say whether, from the evidence, they ' could legally infer them.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, against the defendant. .  