State v. Atkins

5 Blackf. 458, 1840 Ind. LEXIS 126
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 2, 1840
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 5 Blackf. 458 (State v. Atkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Atkins, 5 Blackf. 458, 1840 Ind. LEXIS 126 (Ind. 1840).

Opinion

Dewey, J.

This was a prosecution for passing counterfeit bank-bills as true, knowing them to be false. The indictment contains three counts. In two of thena the false bill is alleged to be “ of the following purport and effect, to wit,” &c.; and in the other, to be “ of the following purport, to wit,” &c. Plea, not guilty, jury trial, and verdict of conviction; judgment arrested by the Court and the prisoner discharged.

We concur in the decision of the Circuit Court arresting the judgment. In cases of forgery, or of knowingly uttering counterfeited instruments of writing, the indictment must profess to set out an exact copy of the counterfeit, that the Court may see it is one of those instruments, the false making or passing of which is punishable by law. The most technical mode of doing this, is to preface the recital of the instrument by the words “ to the tenor following;” but equivalent terms, such as “ in these words,” or “ as follows,” or “ in .the words and figures following,” will do. 1 Chitt. C. L. 234, — 3 id. 1040. — 1 East, 180. Purport, however, has a signification different from tenor; it means the substance as it appears on the face of the instrument; tenor imports an exact copy. 1 Chitt. C. L. 235. — 2 East, C. L. 983. The indictment in question is defective in professing to set out the effect, purport, or substance only of the fictitious bills.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Glasscock v. Corliss
823 N.E.2d 748 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2005)
Schrader v. Eli Lilly and Co.
621 N.E.2d 635 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1993)
Lewis v. State
346 N.E.2d 754 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1976)
People v. Tilden
90 N.E. 218 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1909)
State v. Williams
38 N.E. 339 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Thomas v. State
2 N.E. 808 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
Munson v. State
79 Ind. 541 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
State v. Cook
52 Ind. 574 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1876)
Coppack v. State
36 Ind. 513 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)
United States v. Fisler
25 F. Cas. 1091 (D. Indiana, 1865)
McGinnis v. State
24 Ind. 500 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1865)
Armitage v. State
13 Ind. 441 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1859)
Dana v. State
2 Ohio St. (N.S.) 91 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1853)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Blackf. 458, 1840 Ind. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-atkins-ind-1840.