Gentry v. StateGentry v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Warner
By the Court.
Warner, J.delivering the Opinion.
Three grounds of error have been assigned to the judgment of the Court below.
The answer to the first ground taken is, that the defendant was not indicted for counterfeiting the current coin of the United States, and, therefore, the question of jurisdiction by the State Courts to punish for сounterfeiting such coin, is not made by the record.
The second ground of error alleged is, to the first count in the indictment, which the record shows, the Court below ordered to be stricken out, The Court below sustained the defendant’s objection to the first count in the indictment, and we do not suppose he now considers himself aggrieved by а decision of the Court below in his own favor.
The second countin the indictment charges the defendant with, the offeuce of falsely and fraudulently uttering a counterfeit and forged сoin, knowing the same to be counterfeit and forged. One objection is, that it is not аlleged in the indictment, to whom the coin was tendered by the defendant. The answer to that objеction is, that the defendant is not indicted for tendering in payment a counterfeit, forged or base сoin. The defendant is indicted for uttering a counterfeit, forged andbase coin, and thеre is no objection made, that the person to whom he so uttered it is not statеd in the indictment.
It is also objected, that it is not alleged in the indictment, what kind of silver coin it was that the defendant uttеred, whether a foreign coin, or a coin of the United States ; nor is it alleged thаt the silver coin was of the similitude of any silver coin that was passing or in circulation within this State.
The defendant is charged in the indictment, with having falsely and fraudulently uttered one piеce of base and counterfeit money, made and counterfeited to the likeness and similitude of legal and current silver coin called a dollar, knowing the same to be counterfeit.
The Statute makes it an offence to forge or counterfeit any silver coin which shall he passing or in circulation- within this State, and also falsеly and fraudulently to utter the same, knowing it to be forged or counterfeited. It is an offence within the Statute to utter any forged or counterfeit silver dollar, legally current, whether a forеign or American coin. The defendant is charged with falsely and fraudulently uttering a counterfeit and forged coin, of the likeness and similitude of a legal and current silver coin called *507a dollar, knowing the same to be counterfeit. The first section of the I4lh division of the Penal Code declares, that “ Every indictment or accusation of the Grand Jury, shall be deemed sufficiently tеchnical and correct, which states the offence in the terms and language of this Code, or so plainly that the nature of the of-fence charged may be easily understood by the Jury.” Prince, 658. We think the Jury had no difficulty in understanding that the counterfeit dollar which the defendant was charged in the indictment with having uttered, was of the likeness and similitude оf the silver dollar, made current by the law of Congress in this State, inasmuch as the indictment аlleges, that the counterfeit coin was made and counterfeited to the likеness and similitude of a legal and current silver coin called a dollar. In our judgment, the objections to the second count in the indictment, as stated in the record, were properly overruled by the Court below.
Let the judgment be affirmed.