Stephens v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Stephens v. State

1 Wright 73, 1 Ohio Ch. 73

DecidedAugust 15, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 73 (Stephens 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

Stephens v. State, 1 Wright 73, 1 Ohio Ch. 73 (Ohio 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

The Court in Bank has already decided

upon this record, as to another defendant, 5 O. R. 269. When written instruments enter into the gist of the offence, as in forgery, libel, sending threatening letters, &c., they must be set out. But this will not hold in cases of larceny of notes; because the offence is the act of stealing, and the contents of the note have no connec[74]*74tion with the crime; Arch. C. Pl. 19; 1 East. P. C. 1123; 6 T. R. 162. The indictment in this case charges the defendant with having 200 counterfeit notes in possession, not filled up, with intention to fill them up, in imitation of genuine notes of the Bank of the United States. The notes are not set out. In this class of cases, the instrument should be set out, that the court may judge whether they are such that the forging and circulating them constitute the crime of forgery.

The judgment is reversed, and the prisoner ordered to be discharged from the penitentiary. 29 O. L. 160.

Copy of forged notes must be given in indictment; Dana v. State, 2 O. L. 91, 95.

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

BY THE COURT.

The Court in Bank has already decided

upon this record, as to another defendant, 5 O. R. 269. When written instruments enter into the gist of the offence, as in forgery, libel, sending threatening letters, &c., they must be set out. But this will not hold in cases of larceny of notes; because the offence is the act of stealing, and the contents of the note have no connec[74]*74tion with the crime; Arch. C. Pl. 19; 1 East. P. C. 1123; 6 T. R. 162. The indictment in this case charges the defendant with having 200 counterfeit notes in possession, not filled up, with intention to fill them up, in imitation of genuine notes of the Bank of the United States. The notes are not set out. In this class of cases, the instrument should be set out, that the court may judge whether they are such that the forging and circulating them constitute the crime of forgery.

The judgment is reversed, and the prisoner ordered to be discharged from the penitentiary. 29 O. L. 160.

Copy of forged notes must be given in indictment; Dana v. State, 2 O. L. 91, 95.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 73, 1 Ohio Ch. 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-state-ohio-1832.