Gardner v. State

Bowie, C. J., delivered the opinion of this Court: The plaintiffs in error, assign three grounds for reversing the judgment below, which will be considered severally in their numerical order: 1st. The indictment charges the property stolen to be worth so many dollars, current money, whereas, the 98th ¡sec. of Art. 30 of the Code, requires the value to be of five dollars; meaning gold or silver, which was the standard when the law was passed, and no Act of Assembly has since authorised the value of property to be estimated in current money. This objection rests upon the assumption, that gold and silver are not current money in legal parlance. The thirty-second Article of the Code defines what is currency.” Sec. 1 enacts, the species of coins which have been, and which may be struck at the Mint of the United States, and the rates of foreign coins, as have been or shall be severally regulated and established by Congress, shall be ¹⁵¹ taken', and recognised as the currency of this State.

Sec: 2' enacts, all accounts in this State, shall be expressed in dollars and cents, and all the accounts in the public offices, and all proceedings in the Courts of this State, shall be kept and had in conformity with this regulation. Here, is an express-statutory recognition of “dollars and cents,” (being of the species of coin struck at the Mint of the United States,) as the currency of this State, and the implication of law is, that the value was expressed in that currency; at most: the words objected to, were surplusage, or such as may have* been excepted to on demurrer, and which the Court would not regard as ground of reversal on writ of error. Code,. Art. 30, sec- 80» The second objection is, “The record nowhere shows the1 original indictment.” It alleges that the District Attorney exhibited an indictment “in form following, to wit:” which means “ a copy.” The words “ in form following ” are used in the records, civil and criminal, and all writs of error, as-representing the record of the Court of original jurisdiction-They do not imply a copy, or secondary evidence of the thing,-, but the body of the writing itself.

The indictment could not be otherwise inscribed in the' record, and the