Laird v. State

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff in error was indicted for forging and uttering a bill of exchange, which is set out in the indictment as follows: “Staunton, Va., September 4, 1882. “Augusta National Bank, pay to J. Edwin Laird or bearer, the sum of seventy-five dollars ($75) current funds. G. G. GOOCH. “Correct, W. P. Tarns, Cashier.” And endorsed “ J. Edwin Laird.” ³¹¹ A demurrer was filed to the indictment, which was ■overruled, and the prisoner was tried before the Court and found guilty. Motions for new trial, and to quash the indictment were made, and both overruled, and the prisoner was sentenced to the penitentiary for five years.

The record comes before us on petition setting forth the points and questions, by the ■decision of which the plaintiff in error feels aggrieved. In regard to the first assignment of error, that there is ■a variance between the presentment and indictment, it is only necessary to say, that when one is tried upon an indictment, we must look to it and not to the presentment to ascertain the nature and character of the offence charged. By the finding of the indictment, the grand jury has the right to correct, change, or modify, the presentment. In the next place it is argued, that the paper-writing ■set forth in the indictment, is not a bill of exchange because it is payable £t in current funds.” Bills of exchange pass by delivery or endorsement, and it is essential that the instrument purporting to be one, should be payable in money.

A direction to pay out of certain funds, or notes •of a particular bank, or the currency of a particular place •or State, have been held to destroy its negotiability, because the medium of payment is fluctuating and uncertain. The many and conflicting decisions on this subject, will be found collected in 1 Daniel on Neg. Inst., secs. 61-3, and note. All the cases however agree, if the instrument be payable in current money, it is sufficient, because legal tender money will be presumed to be intended.

The words “current funds” as used in the paper before us, mean nothing more or less than “ current money,” and so construed the instrument was negotiable. Again it is said