McMillen v. State

5 Ohio 268
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1831
StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio 268 (McMillen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McMillen v. State, 5 Ohio 268 (Ohio 1831).

Opinion

By the Court :

An indictment for forgery must describe the instrument alleged to be forged specifically. In an indictment for larceny it is enough to set forth that bank notes of a general description, to a specific-amount in value, were stolen. It is not the specific character of the notes, but the theft, that constitutes the essence of the crime. In a prosecution for forgery it is different. The forged instrument must be set out, that* the court may determine advisedly whether the fabrication of it,constitute the crime inhibited by the-law. All the precedents are so, and so are the authorities. 6 Term, 162; 1 East, 180; Arch. C. L. 19. The judgment must be reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Ohio 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillen-v-state-ohio-1831.