Foster v. State

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The prisoner was indicted under section 158 of Article 21 of the Code, for stealing one bank note, for the payment of money, to wit, for the payment of twenty ⁵⁵⁴ dollars” and divers other hank notes; and the sole question is whether it was competent for the State to offer in evidence, in support of the indictment, the stealing of a national bank note of the denomination of twenty dollars, issued by the “Moravia National Banh.” Since the decision in State vs. Cassel, 2 H. & G., 407, this can no longer he considered an open question. In that case, the prisoner was indicted under the Act of 1809, chap. 138, sec. 6, now section 158, of Art. 27 of the Code, for stealing “one banlc note for the payment ofiioenty dollars,” and on motion in arrest of judgment, it w&s argued that the indictment ought to have charged the stealing of a hank note issued by some particular hank. The Court however said, “This Act speaks of a hank note or notes as the subject of larceny, without stating that they must he the notes of any particular hank or hanks; and it would, therefore, seem to he reasonable, and we think the law requires nothing more in this case, than to charge the offence in the language of the statute.” We may add, the question underwent considerable discussion in a still