
    United States v. William Crandell.
    The person intended to he injured by a forgery, and the person whose name is forged to a certificate, are competent witnesses to prove the forgery. But if the witness has paid money upon the forged paper, he is not competent to prove the forgery.
    Theee were three indictments against the defendant for forgery. In one he was charged with forging a certificate purporting to be signed by one Henry Naylor, with intent to defraud one Hol-mead.
    
      Mr. Key, for the defendant,
    objected to Naylor and Holmead as witnesses for the prosecution.
    
      Mr. Key, for the defendant,
    objected to Digges as a witness, but the objection was overruled by the Court.
   The Court

(Thruston, J., absent,)

overruled the objection. Upon another indictment against him for forgery, a witness was sworn who had paid-five dollars upon the forged paper. The Court instructed the jury, that he was not a competent witness. (Cranch, C. J., doubting.) Upon a third indictment for forging the name of G. Bomford to a bond, with intent to injure one Digges.  