Stewart v. State

Eobinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The traverser was indicted under sec. 101, Art. 30, of the Code, which provides for the punishment of any one who shall steal any “bond,” f bill of exchange,” “hank note,” “promissory notes,” “checks,” and “certificates granted by or under the authority of this State or of the United States.” The indictment charged the traverser with stealing “ certain promissory notes for the payment of money,” and to support this charge the State offered in evidence a “silver certificate” of the denomination and value of twenty dollars, issued by the authority of the United States. The question is whether such evidence is admissible to prove the offence as laid in the indictment? The well settled rules of criminal pleading require that the offence shall he described in the indictment with such ⁴¹⁴ certainty and precision as will inform the accused of the nature of the charge brought against him; and as will enable him also to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar to a second prosecution.

It was also well settled by the earlier cases, that where, in a statute creating an offence, a general term is used, succeeded by words more precise and definite, or a specific term is followed by more'comprehensive words, the indictment must charge the offence in the specific words. Thus where a statute provided a punishment for one who should steal a “ horse,” “ mare,” or “gelding,” the proof of a “gelding” would not support an indictment for stealing a horse. 2 East P. C., 1075; 1 Leach, (fith Ed.) 73, note. There is a disposition both in England and in some of the States in this country, to relax somewhat the rigid rules of construction in regard to criminal pleading, and in some cases it has been held that the general term or genus embraces the particular or species. But the decisions are by no means uniform, and the weight of authority in this country inclines to the ancient rule in this respect.

But be that as it may, we are now considering a statute which makes it a penal offence to steal a “ promissory note,” and this is followed by a provision for stealing a “ bank note,” or a “certificate” issued by the State or by the United States. The question is not whether a silver certificate, may not be considered in mercantile law, a promissory note,