16 Ind. 14 | Ind. | 1860
This case involves the points decided in McGregor v. The State, at this term {ante, p. 9), and one other in addition. This latter is all that will be now examined.
The Court, on the trial of the defendant for passing a counterfeit gold piece, permitted proof, with a view to the scienter of the fact that the defendant had in his possession, and attempted to secrete, counterfeit bank notes.
This evidence is objected to on two grounds. 1. Irrelevancy. 2. Because the bills were not produced, or notice given to produce them. We incline to think the evidence was relevant, but do not decide the point. This Court decided, in McCartney v. The State, 3 Ind. 353, that on the trial of an indictment for passing a counterfeit bank bill, evidence of the possession by the defendant of counterfeit bills on other banks than that on which the bill described in
The defendant objected to this evidence, “ on the ground that on the trial of a defendant for passing gold coin it was not permissible, for any purpose, to show that the defendant had or passed paper money.”
The objection, thus taken, did not raise the point as to proving contents of,bills not present; nor can that point be raised here; both because it is too late, and because the facts testified to do not involve it. The witness said nothing about the character or contents of the bills in question. He was detailing the conduct of the defendant at his arrest, and his words, as part of the res gesta. -On the other points, we are satisfied with the opinion in McGregor v. The State, supra.
The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.