In such case the bonds need not be further described, if the coupons are properly described, and the proof shows that they were cut from the bonds of the state.'

§ 77. Money; coin.— Money should be described as so many pieces current gold or silver coin of the country, of a particular denomination, according to the facts. The species of coin must be specified. A description as "three thousand dollars, lawful money of the United States," is not sufficient." An information which describes the property simply as "one hundred and thirty-five dollars," "of the property, goods and chattels of J. C.," and without any allegation of its value, or of any excuse for the want of greater particularity, is fatally defective. It is not certain whether the larceny charged is of money or other personal property. And having failed to state it to be money, the information is not within the statute allowing a general allegation in cases of the larceny of money." So an indictment describing the property stolen as "three hundred gold dollars, the property of" the alleged owner, without alleging the value of the dollars, or that they were of the lawful money or current coin of the United States, or other country, is defective for want of a sufficient description. And so is an indictment for theft of "one hundred and eighty-two dollars in United States currency." But an indictment describing money stolen as "the sum of $275 in money, lawful money of the United States, and of the value of $275 of the proper moneys," etc., is sufficiently explicit under the New York statute, which requires "a plain and concise statement of the act constituting the crime," and "a brief description" of it. So, in describing the money taken as "the sum of three hundred and ninety-five dollars, lawful currency of the United

1 State v. Wade, 7 Baxter 22.

2 People v. Ball, 14 Cal. 101; 73 Am. Dec. 631; Lord v. State, 20 N. H. 404; 51 Am. Dec. 231; Williams v. State, 5 Tex. App. 116.

3 Merwin v. People, 26 Mich. 298; Barton v. State, 29 Ark. 68.

4 Lavarre v. State, 1 Tex. App. 685.

5 Martinez v. State, 41 Tex, 164. S. P. Ridgeway v. State. Id. 231; Left

wich v. Com., 20 Grat. 716; Merrill v. Mississippi, 45 Miss. 651.

6

People v. Reavey, 38 Hun 418. S. P., in Texas. Wofford v. State, (Tex.) 16 S. W. 535.

1

3

States, of denomination and issue to the jurors aforesaid unknown," the indictment sufficiently individualized the transaction, although it omitted to charge the "kind of currency. ." So also, an indictment which charged that defendant did "feloniously steal, take and carry away, of the personal goods and chattels of A. B. fifty dollars in money, of the value of fifty dollars, contrary to the statute," was held to sufficiently describe the property stolen.' In Louisiana and Ohio, it is not necessary to specify the kind or denomination of the gold or silver coin alleged to have been stolen. The simple averment of "money" in such a case will admit proof of the amount. Stolen coin should be described as so many pieces of current gold or silver coin, specifying the species of coin, unless the species of coin be unknown to the grand jury, in which case they may so state. In Texas, however, the denomination of the pieces stolen need not be alleged if the indictment states their value. And if the description identifies the stolen property with reasonable certainty, the indictment will be deemed good, although the description. might have been made more definite.' In Louisiana, it is not necessary to specify the kind or denomination of the coin. In Indiana, an averment that the defendant stole United States gold coin, is the same as to allege that he stole gold coin of the United States; and it will be presumed that the court and jury know that a United States gold coin of the denomination and value of ten dollars is an eagle.' It is not a ground for arrest of judgment, after conviction of larceny of gold and silver coin and bank bills of a specified value, that the indictment avers that the grand jury have no knowledge or means.

1 State v. Shirer, 20 S. C. 392.

2 Brown v. People, 29 Mich. 232. S. P.; Hammond v. State, 121 Ind. 512.

3 State v. Walker, 22 La. Ann. 425; State v. Green, 27 La. Ann. 598; McDivit v. State, 20 Ohio St. 231; see also as to the sufficiency of the description of stolen money, in indictments for larceny.-Grand v. State, 55 Ala. 201; Jones v. Commonwealth, 13 Bush. 356.

• People v. Bogart, 36 Cal. 245; People v. Ball, 14 Cal. 101.

'Bravo v. State, 20 Tex. App. 177.

State v. Walker, 22 La. Ann. 425. 'Daily v. State, 10 Ind. 536.

of knowledge of the particular description of the coin or bank bills alleged to have been stolen.'

2

§ 78. Bank bills or notes.- Ordinarily to charge the stealing of bank notes eo nomine is sufficient, the number, denomination and value of the notes being stated. It ought, however, to be alleged that the bills contained a promise to pay money, or some agreement to that effect.' But an indictment for larceny of a bank note, averring its denomination, need not allege its genuineness nor the name of the bank. No allegation of genuineness is necessary where the indictment describes the bills as bills of a specified bank and of a certain

1 Com. v. Sawtelle, 11 Cush. 142. See Com. v. O'Connell, 12 Allen, 451. The following descriptions of coin stolen have been held insufficient:-Certain coins "of the goods and chattels" of a certain person.-State v. Parker, 1 Del. Cr. 9. "Three dollars in divers pieces of silver current in this state, and of the lawful value of three dollars."-Lord v. State, 20 N. H. 404. 66 'Ten dollars good and lawful money of the state of Tennessee."-State v. Longbottoms, 11 Humph. 39. "The sum of sixty-five dollars of the following description: two twenty dollar gold pieces, and one five dollar gold piece, and two ten dollar United States currency bills, and one money purse."-Boyle v. State, 37 Tex. 359.

*
*
*

The following have been held sufficient descriptions:-"Four hundred and fifty dollars, in specie, coin of the United States, the denomination and description of which is to the grand jury unknown."-Chisholm v. State, 45 Ala. 66. "Current as money in the state of Kansas, consisting of five-cent pieces of nickel, commonly called 'nickels;' of quarter dollar silver pieces, commonly called 'quarters;' of ten-cent silver pieces, commonly called 'dimes;' of half-dollar pieces, commonly called 'half-dollars;' of one-dollar silver pieces commonly called 'dollars;' of certain foreign coins of various denominations; a more particular description of any and of all such money cannot be given, as informant has no means of obtaining knowledge."-State v. McAnulty, 26 Kan. 533. "Copper coin of the value of two dollars and seventy-five cents."-Com. v. Gallagher, 16 Gray 240. "Sixty silver coins (of the kind usually known as dollars) of the value of one dollar each.”— Miller v. People, 21 Hun 443. "Four one-half dollar silver pieces, United States silver coin, of the denomination and value of fifty cents each." --Davison v. State, 12 Tex. App. 214. "One twenty dollar gold piece, of the value of twenty dollars, current money of the United States, and one five dollar bill in money of the value of five dollars.”—Bryant v. State, 16 Tex. App. 144.

2 State v. Williams, 19 Ala. 15; 54 Am. Dec. 184; Hamblett v. State, 18 N. H. 384; Bullock v. State, 10 Ga. 46.

3 State v. Emery, Brayt. 131.

▲ State v. Stevens, 62 Me. 284.

2

value. So, bank bills stolen from the person need not be minutely described if the jury are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to their identity. In Indiana, the phrase “goods and chattels" in an indictment means "personal goods of which larceny may be committed," and includes "bank bills and money." Under a statute which prescribes the punishment for stealing "any bank note," an indictment is good which charges the stealing of “a bank bill.”✦ In Michigan, an indictment which charges the stealing of "bank notes" or "bank bills," following the language of the statute is good.' In New York, where an indictment alleged that the prisoner feloniously and violently stole, took and carried away from the person of J. D., and against his will, current bank bills of t! value of fifteen dollars, and silver coin of the value of three dollars, it was held sufficient, although it did not show the number and denomination of the bank bills, or the amount secured thereby and remaining unsatisfied thereon, or the number, size and description of the pieces of silver coin. allegation of the larceny of "bills of credit" will not support an indictment, unless the description therein contained is such as to cause it to appear that they were of a character the issue whereof was authorized by act of congress.' In Georgia, where bills alleged to be stolen are not sufficiently described in the indictment, advantage should be taken by demurrer, and not by objections to evidence of description of the property."

1 State v. Smart, 4 Rich. 356; 55 Am. Dec. 683.

* Wilson v. State, 66 Ga. 591.

3 Garfield v. State, 74 Ind. 60.

An

Eastman v. Com. 4 Gray, 416; Low v. People, 2 Parker 37; Roth v. State, 10 Tex. App. 27.

'People v. Kent, 1 Doug. 42.

People v. Loop, 3 Parker, 559.

'Culp v. State, 1 Port. 33; 26 Am. Dec. 357.

Roberts v. State, 83 Ga. 369. The following descriptions of bank bills have been held sufficient:-"Thirteen bills against the Hartford Bank, cach for the payment and of the value of ten dollars, issued by such bank, being an incorporated bank in this State."-Salisbury v. State, 6 Conn. 101. "A bank note of the State Bank of Ohio for the payment of ten dollars."-Crawford v. State, 2 Ind. 132. And see Engleman v. State, Id. 91. "Three promissory notes called bank notes on the Bank of

§ 79. Describing bank bills as promissory notes.—An indictment properly describes a bank bill alleged to have been stolen, as a promissory note.' So an indictment for the larceny of United States treasury notes describing them as "promissory notes of the United States given for the payment of money," stating their denomination and value; and bank notes as "national bank notes, commonly called national currency notes, then and there being obligatory promissory notes of the national currency issue, given for the payment of money," is sufficient."

66

the United States."-McLaughlin v. Com. 4 Rawle, 464. 'Bank bills" of a certain denomination, "a more particular description of which bank bills cannot now be given," of a certain value specified, and the property of a person named. - Hart v. State, 55 Ind. 599; Com. v. Grimes, 10 Gray 470; 71 Am. Dec. 666. "$520 of the paper currency, money and bank notes, current in the United States," where a more particular description cannot be given.-Riggs v. State, 104 Ind. 261. 'One hundred and eighty dollars in bank notes."-State v. Hockenberry, 30 Iowa 504. "A quantity of bank bills current within this commonwealth, amounting together to one hundred and fifty dollars, and of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars."-Com. v. O'Connell, 12 Allen 451. And see Com. v. Sawtelle, 11 Cush. 142. "Two bank bills, of the value of ten dollars each, of the property of one John Moore."- State v. Mahanna, 48 N. H. 377. “A twenty dollar bank note on the State Bank of North Carolina, of the value of twenty dollars."-State v. Rout, 3 Hawks 618. "A ten dollar bill of the currency of the country, commonly called paper money, of the value of ten dollars."-State v. Evans, 15 Rich. 31. 'One five dollar bill in money of the value of five dollars."-Green v. State 28 Tex. App. 493. See also State v. Taunt, 16 Minn. 109.

-

66

But an indictment which alleged the stealing of "one bank note of the Bank of Baltimore," was held bad.-Com. v. McDowell, 1 Browne, 359. So also of an indictment charging stealing from a house "one five dollar bill of the value of five dollars."-Allen v. State, 86 Ga. 399. And of an indictment which alleged the stealing of "divers bank notes, amounting in the whole to the sum of five hundred dollars and of the value of five hundred dollars."-State v. Hinckley, 4 Minn. 345. As to the requisites of the allegata and probata as to the identity of bankbills stolen, see also State v. Hoppe, 39 Iowa 468.

1 Com. v. Thomas, 10 Gray, 483; Com. v. Paulus, 11 Id. 305; Commonwealth v. Butts, 124 Mass. 449; Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 126 Mass. 54; Commonwealth v. Griffiths, Id. 252; Commonwealth v. Collins, 138 Mass. 483; Commonwealth v. Jenks, Id. 484; People v. Jackson, 8 Barb. 637. And see People v. Holbrook, 18 Johns. 90.

2 Hummel v. State, 17 Ohio St. 628; State v. Fulford, Phil. (N. C.) 563. In South Carolina, the stealing of a bank bill was held an offense within the