The Forgery Case of Holmes.
At the General Term of the Supreme Court in
this city yesterday, before Judges Gould, Ingraham
and Mullen, the case of John B. Holmes was argued.
This is an appeal by the prisoner, Holmes, who was
convicted of forgery in the first degree in Novem-
ber, 1857, in the Court of General Sessions. The
indictment contains two counts. The first, charging
the felonious forging of a deed of real estate; the
second, charging the uttering and publishing the
same, and knowing it to be forged. Both these
counts charge the offence as having been perpe-
trated with intent to defraud and injure James P.
Nagle. The real estate described in the deed is de-
scribed as situated in the city of Albany. The deed
purports to be made and executed by John B.
Holmes and Ada his wife.
The question comes before the Court simply up-
on the record, there being no bill of exceptions.
The counsel for the appellant takes the ground
that the indictment is insufficient to sustain the con-
viction, there being no allegation that the deed was
ever delivered, and that it charges the forgery of
an entire instrument; whereas, and in fact, the evi-
dence only showed it to have been altered in some
important point. The District Attorney, however,
contends that where an enactment charges the for-
gery of the whole instrument, evidence under the
rule laid down in Archbold may be given to show
that the instrument has been altered, and that a
conviction will be sustained. And further, that the
name of the prisoner and one of the grantors being
the same, it does not legally follow that the prison-
er is the same person with the supposed grantor.
Truman Smith for appellant; S. B. Garvin, As-
sistant District Attorney, for People.