feiting of United States coin; and in exercise of the authority thus deputed, several legislatures have passed acts making the offence highly penal.n Although the principle of concurrency of jurisdiction has been much disputed, yet so far as coining and forgery of federal securities are concerned, the offence is one as to which most of the states have found it necessary by legislation to accept the cumulative jurisdiction given to them by congress. At all events indictments may be maintained in the state courts, under state laws, for counterfeiting federal coin and securities, the offence being against the state. o 2. Evidence in Coining, &c. § 1501. In a prosecution for coining, the jury should be satisfied that the resemblance of the forged to the genuine piece is such as might deceive a person using ordinary caution.p Thus in an English case, where the defendant had counterfeited the resemblance of a half guinea upon a piece of gold previously hammered, but it was not round, nor would it pass in the condition in which it then was, the judges held that the offence was incomplete. q In a later case, where the defendants were taken in the very act of coining shillings, but the shillings coined by them were then in an imperfect state, it being requisite that they should undergo another process, namely, immersion in diluted aquafortis, before they could pass as shillings; the judges held that the offence was not yet consummated. r The same general view has been taken in this country. 8 § 1502. A person, it is said in Virginia, who takes base pieces Leigh, 707; State v. Pitman, 1 Brev. 32; Chess v. State, 1 Blackf. 198; Com. v. Fuller, 8 Metc. 313; though see Rouse v. State, 4 Ga. 136; Mattesin State, 3 Missouri, 421; State v. Shoe (364) Counterfeiting current coin. Rev. Stats. of Mass. ch. 127, § 15. (365) Uttering and passing counterfeit coin. Rev. Stats. of Mass. ch. 127, § 16. (366) Coining, &c., under the North maker, 7 Ibid. 177; Jett v. Com. 18 Carolina statute. n See State v. Tutt, 2 Bailey, 44; Chess r. State, 1 Blackford, 198; Com. v. Fuller, 8 Met. 313. o Sutton v. State, 9 Ohio, 133; Prigg v. Com. 16 Peters, 630; Fox v. Ohio, 5 Howard U. S. 410; State v. Antonio, 3 Brev. 562; Manley v. People, 3 Seld. 295; Hendrick v. Com. 5 Gratt. 933; but see ante, § 184, 541 a. p U. S. v. Morrow, 4 Wash. C. C. 733; U. S. v. Burns, 5 McLean C. C. 24. Ante, § 1444 n. q 2 W. Bl. 682; 1 East P. C. 164. r 1 Leach, 165. s U. S. v. Burns, 5 McLean C. C. R. 24. of coin, which are brought to him ready made, having the impression and appearance of real coin, though of different color, and brightens them so as to give them the resemblance of real coin and render them fit for circulation, is guilty of counterfeiting. He completes the offence, and subjects thereby to the penalties of the law, not only himself, but all who acted a part, and were present assisting in the transaction. t The prisoner, with intent of coining counterfeit half dollars of Peru, procured dies in England for stamping and imitating such coin. He was apprehended before he had obtained the metal and chemical preparations necessary for making counterfeit coins. It was held that the procuring the dies was an act in furtherance of the criminal purpose sufficiently proximate to the offence intended, and sufficiently evidencing the criminal intent to support an indictment founded on it for a misdemeanor, although the same facts would not have supported an indictment for attempting to make counterfeit coin. u The jury also found that the prisoner intended to make only a few counterfeit coins in England, with a view merely of testing the completeness of the apparatus before he sent it out to Peru. It was held, that even to make a few coins in England with that object would be to commit the offence of making counterfeit coins within the statute. v § 1503. An indictment does not lie for forging a Spanish head pistareen, as it is not a coin of Spain made current by law in the United States. x Under the Connecticut statute, aiding in the act of counterfeiting is within both the letter and reason of the law, as much as assisting in making the implement. y 3. Description of Coin in Indictment. § 1504. As a rule, coin, in an indictment for forgery, need be only generally described. z In an indictment for uttering t Rasnick v. Com. 2 Virg. Cas. 356. u R. v. Roberts, 33 Eng. Law & Eq. 553; 7 Cox C. C. 39; Dears. C. C. 539. See R. v. Weeks, 8 Cox C. C. 455. Ante, § 750. v Ibid. z U. S. v. Gardner, 10 Pet. 618. counterfeit coins it is sufficient y State v. Stutson, Kirby, 52. z Com. v. Stearns, 10 Metc. 256; State v. Williams, 8 Iowa, 534; Peck v. State, 2 Humph. 78; State v. Griffin, 18 Vt. 198. Though see State v. Shoemaker, 7 Mo. 177. to describe them as "made and counterfeited" to the likeness and similitude of the good, true, and correct money and silver coins currently passing in the state and commonly called Spanish dollars. a And the description would be good without the term "Spanish." b § 1505. An indictment on the Virginia statute of 1834-35, c. 66, charging that the prisoner "did knowingly have in his custody, without lawful authority or excuse, one die or instrument, for the purpose of producing and impressing the stamp and similitude of the current silver coin called a half dollar" (not further describing the die or instrument), is sufficient. c § 1506. An indictment, charging the defendant with having passed counterfeit "dollars," describes with sufficient certainty the character of the coin counterfeited. d § 1507. An indictment which alleges that the defendant had in his possession a coin, counterfeited in the similitude of the good and legal silver coins of this commonwealth, called à dollar, with intent to pass the same as true, knowing it to be counterfeit, is supported by proof that the defendant had in his possession a coin counterfeited in the similitude of a Mexican dollar, with such intent and knowledge. e 4. Uttering, &c. § 1508. Where a good shilling was given to a Jew boy for fruit, and he put it into his mouth, under pretence of trying whether it was good, and then taking a bad shilling out of his mouth instead of it, returned it to the prosecutor, saying it was not good; this (which is called ringing the changes) was holden to be an uttering within the meaning of the statute 16 Geo. 2, c. 28. f § 1509. The giving of a piece of counterfeit coin in charity has been held not to be uttering within the statute, although the party knew it to be a counterfeit; for there must be some intention to defraud.g The staking counterfeit coin at a gaming table as good money a Fight v. State, 7 Ham. 180. b Com. v. Stearns, supra. d Peck v. The State, 2 Humph. 78. See ante, § 1450. e Com. v. Stearns, 10 Metcalf, 256. ƒ R. v. Franks, 2 Leach, 644. g R. v. Page, 8 C. & P. 122, sed quære; see 1 Cox C. C. 250. Ante, § 1448. is an attempt to utter or pass the same; and losing it at play is a passing of the same against law.g1 The giving of counterfeit coin to a woman, as the price of connection with her, is holden to be within the statute. h § 1510. It is an "uttering and putting off," as well as a “tendering," if the counterfeit coin be offered in payment, though it be refused by the person to whom it is offered. ¿ 5. Presumptions. The presumption to be drawn from other attempts to pass counterfeit coin, or its possession on the person, has been already noticed.j Guilty agency in coining may be inferred as a presumption of fact from possession of the means of counterfeiting, and of a large mass of counterfeit money. k 6. Existence of Genuine Original not necessary to be proved. If the coin forged be a common coin, legal in the United States, it is not necessary to prove that there is an original which the forged coin counterfeits. g1 State v. Beeler, 1 Brevard, 482. h R. v. - 1 Cox C. C. 250. i R. v. Welch, 2 Den. C. C. 78. See R. v. Radford, 1 Den. C. C. 59; R. v. Ion, 2 Den. C. C. 475. See ante, § 1448. 300 j Ante, § 631-39; 647-52, 1457. k U. S. v. Burns, 5 McLean, 23; U. S. v. King, 5 McLean, 208. See ante, § 728, 731, 1457. See Daily v. State, 10 Ind. 536; U. S. v. Burns, supra. CHAPTER II. BURGLARY. [The statutes contained in prior editions under this head are here omitted. They will be found in the 6th edition between § 1511 and § 1530; and the adjudications upon them, and succeeding statutes, will be given in the following pages.] 1. Need not be simultaneous with breaking, § 1549. 9. Tents; "log cabins," § 1570. 10. Occupation by servant, § 1570. 11. Absence of occupant, § 1572. 12. Definition of statutory terms, § 1576. (b.) Warehouse, § 1576. (e.) Counting-house, § 1576. IV. OWNERSHIP. 1. In general master is owner, § 1577. 2. Servants, workmen, &c., § 1578. 3. Married women, § 1582. 4. Public buildings, § 1584. ""lodg 66 6. Burglary in one's own house, § 1591. V. TIME, § 1592. 2. But without entry breaking not enough, VI. INTENTION. § 1549. 1. Felonious intent necessary, § 1598. 2. Proof of intent, § 1600. 3. Need not be executed, § 1600. 1. Technical terms, § 1607. 4. Time, § 1612. 5. Pleading intent, § 1613. 6. Joinder of offence, § 1615. 7. Variance as to intent, § 1617. |