Eastman v. Commonwealth

70 Mass. 416

• Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
• Decided: October 15, 1855
• Status: Published

Opinion

Metcalf, J.

The seventeenth section of c. 126 of the revised statutes, on which the plaintiff in error was indicted, prescribes the punishment of larceny by stealing (among other things) u any bank note ” ; but the indictment charged him with stealing a “bank bill.” We are of opinion that there is no error in this for, throughout the revised statutes, the words “bank note” and “bank bill” are used indifferently, and have the same meaning. Eev. Sts. c. 36, §§ 8, 10, 29, 53, 56,57,58, 61; c. 120, § 4 ; c. 127, §§ 4, 5, 8. A bank bill, therefore, is a bank note.

Although bank notes or bills may not, perhaps, be properly termed goods and chattels, in an indictment, yet, in the present case, the words “ of the goods and chattels ” may be rejected as surplusage, and the remaining words in the indictment will constitute a sufficient charge of larceny. So are the English decisions. The King v. Morris, 2 Leach, (3d ed.) 525. Regina v. Radley, 1 Denison, 450. And they conform to our own decisions in analogous cases. Commonwealth v. Simpson, 9 Met. 138. Commonwealth v. Bolkom, 3 Pick. 281. See also Commonwealth v Moseley, 2 Virg. Cas. 154.

Judgment affirmed.