21 Ind. 176 | Ind. | 1863
The indictment, in this case, charges the defendant with having stolen “three bank bills, of the description and denomination following, viz: one five dollar bank bill on the Hartford Bank of Connecticut, of the value of five dollars; one two dollar bill on the Bristow County Bank, Taunton, Massachusetts,, of the value of two dollars; and one one dollar bill on the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Bank, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, of the value of one dollar.” ' Plea, not guilty. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.
The record contains a bill of exceptions, which shows, that “during the progress of the trial, the-State offered in evidence a paper, which is, in part, in the words and figures following:”'
“5 Hartford Bank. - 5
“"Will pay five dollars to the bearer on demand. Hartford, September, 1860.
“Jas. Bolten, Cashier.
“H. A. Dikon, Presj;.”
An objection to the admission of this paper in evidence was sustained by the Court, and the State excepted.
The paper offered in evidence is plainly within the description of a bank note. Is it also a bank bill? In other words, are the terms, “bank note” and “bank bill,” synonymous? If they are, then the instrument offered in evidence is sufficiently described in the indictment, and should have been admitted. 2 R. S. (G. & H.) p. 403, §§ 58, 59. Webster, in his Dictionary, says: “Bank Bill — In America, the same as bank note.” And the Constitution, art. xi, sec. 1, is in these words: “The General Assembly shall not have power
to establish or incorporate any bank or banking company, or monied institution, for the purpose of issuing bills of credit, or bills payable to order or bearer, except under the conditions prescribed in this Constitution.” Thus, it will be seen,
Per Curiam. — The appeal is sustained.