v. Herold, 63 N. J. Eq. 443, 52 Atl. 152; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Bowns, 58 N. Y. 573; Buffalo &c. Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 106 N. Y. 669, 12 N. E. 826; Leonard v. Poole, 114 N. Y. 371, 21 N. E. 707; People v. Barondess, 133 N. Y. 649, 31 N. E. 240; People v. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 251, 34 N. E. 785; Reynolds v. Everett, 144 N. Y. 189, 39 N. E. 72; People v. Milk Exchange, 145 N. Y. 267, 39 N. E. 1062; Curran v. Galen, 152 N. Y. 33, 46 N. E. 297; Davis v. Zimmerman, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 489, 36 N. Y. S. 303; Master &c. Asso. v. Walsh, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 1; Gilbert v. Mickle, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 357; People v. Fisher, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 9; Jones v. Westervelt, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 445; Johnston Co. v. Meinhardt, 60 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 168; Coons v. Chrystie, 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 296, 53 N. Y. S. 668; Reformes Club &c. v. Laborers' &c. Soc., 29 Misc. (N. Y.) 247, 60 N. Y. S. 388; Rogers v. Eberts, 17 N. Y. S. 264; People v. Smith, 10 N. Y. St. 730; People v. Walsh, 15 N. Y. St. 17; People v. Wilzig, 4 N. Y. Cr. 403; People v. Kostka, 4 N. Y. Cr. 429; Emery v. Ohio Candle Co., 47 Ohio St. 320, 24 N. E. 660; Moores v. Bricklayers' Union, 23 Cin. L. Bul. 48, 10 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 665; Dayton Mfg. Co. v. Metal Polishers' &c. Union, 8 Ohio N. P. 574; Richter V. Journeymen Tailors' Union, 24 Cin. L. Bul. 189; Perkins v. Rogg, 28 Cin. L. Bul. 32, 11 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 585; New York &c. R. Co. v. Wenger, 17 Cin. L. Bul. 306; Longshore &c. Co. v. Howell, 26 Ore. 527, 38 Pac. 547; Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co., 68 Pa. St. 173; Newman v. Commonwealth, 5 Cent. Rep. 497; Brace v. Evans, 3 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 561; Cook v. Dolan, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 401; Wildee v. McKee, 111 Pa. St. 335, 2 Atl. 108; Murdock v. Walker, 152 Pa. St. 595, 25 Atl. 492; Cote v. Murphy, 159 Pa. St. 420, 28 Atl. 190; Buchanan v. Kerr, 159 Pa. St. 433, 28 Atl. 195; Wick China Co. v. Brown, 164 Pa. St. 449, 30 Atl. 261; Macauley v. Tierney, 19 R. I. 255, 33 Atl. 1; Manufacturers' &c. Co. v. Longley, 20 R. I. 86, 37 Atl. 535; Payne v. Western &c. R. Co., 13 Lea (Tenn.) 507; Delz v. Winfree, 80 Tex. 400, 16 S. W. 111; Texas &c. Co. v. Adoue, 83 Tex. 650, 19 S. W. 274; People v. O'Loughlin, 3 Utah 133, 1 Pac. 653; State v. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273, 9 Atl. 559; State v. Dyer, 67 Vt. 690, 32 Atl. 814; Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. 1, 42 Atl. 607, 43 L. R. A. 803; Crump v. Commonwealth, 84 Va. 927, 6 S. E. 620; Murray v. McGarigle, 69 Wis. 483, 34 N. W. 522; Martens v. Reilly, 109 Wis. 464, 84 N. W. 840; State v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 85 N. W. 1046; Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540, 8 Sup. Ct. 1301; Debs, In re, 158 U. S. 564, 15 Sup. Ct. 900; United States v. Trans-Missouri &c. Asso., 166 U. S. 290, 17 Sup. Ct. 540; United States v. Kane, 23 Fed. 748; Wabash R. Co., In re, 24 Fed. 217; Old Dominion &c. Co. v. McKenna, 24 Blatch. (U. S.) 244, 30 Fed. 48; Emac v. Kane, 34 Fed. 47; Casey v. Туроgraphical Union, 45 Fed. 135; Cœur d'Alene &c. Co. v. Miners' Union, 51 Fed. 260; Toledo &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. 730; United States v. Workingmen's &c. Council, 54 Fed. 994; Waterhouse v. Comer, 55 Fed. 149; United States v. Patterson, 55 Fed. 605; Farmers' Loan &c. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 60 Fed. 803; Lake Erie &c. R. Co. v. Bailey, 61 Fed. 494; Southern &c. R. Co. v. Rutherford, 62 Fed. 796; Thomas v. Cincinnati &c. R. Co., 62 Fed. 803; Arthur v. Oakes, 11 C. C. A. 209, 63 Fed. 310, 25 L. R. A. 414; United States v. Elliott, 64 Fed. 27; Dueber &c. Co. v. Howard &c. Co., 66 Fed. 637; Continental Ins. Co. v. Board &c., 67 Fed. 310; Oxley Stave Co. v. Coopers' &c. Union, 72 Fed. 695; Consolidated Steel &c. Co. v. Murray, 80 Fed. 811; Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 Fed. 912; United States v. Weber, 114 Fed. 950; Reg. v. Rowlands, 17 Ad. & E. 67; Reg. v. Harris, 1 Car. & M. 661; Reg. v. Selsby, 5 Cox Cr. Cas. 495, note; Wood Barrow, 10 Cox Cr. Cas. 344; Reg. v. Druitt, 10 Cox Cr. Cas. 592; Reg. v. Shepherd, 11 Cox Cr. Cas. 325; Reg. v. Bunn, 12 Cox Cr. Cas. 316; Reg. v. Hibbert, 13 Cox Cr. Cas. 82; Reg. v. Bauld, 13 Cox Cr. Cas. 282; Rex v. Mawbey, 6 Term R. 619; Hilton v. Eckersley, 6 E. & B. 47; Walsby v. Anley, 3 E. & E. 516; Rex v. Eccles, 3 Doug. 337; Greggory v. Duke of Brunswick, 6 M. & G. 205; Tarlton v. Mc Gawley, Peak N. P. 205; Rex v. Ferguson, 2 Stark. 431; Reg. v. Aspinall, L. R. 2 Q. B. 48; Mogul &c. Co. v. McGregor, L. R. 21 Q. B. 544; Allen v. Flood, L. R. 23 App. Cas. 1; Springhead &c. Co. v. Riley, L. R. 6 Eq. Cas. 551. 2953. What must be proved-Bur- 2958. Accomplices. den-Presumptions. 2954. Knowledge-Intent offenses. 2955. Possession by accused. 2956. Existence of bank. 2959. Expert evidence. Similar 2960. Production of counterfeit at trial. 2961. Defenses. § 2952. Generally.-Counterfeiting coin is the making of false or spurious coin to imitate, or in the similitude of, the genuine coin.1 Counterfeiting the coin of the realm was a crime at common law, and so, it seems, was the passing of such counterfeit coin or the having it in possession with intent to pass it as the true coin. The possession of instruments for counterfeiting coin was also a crime. Passing a false note purporting to be that of a bank having no existence, or the like, was also punishable as a form of cheating. Under the laws of the United States and of the various states, the offense of counterfeiting has been much extended, and it includes the counterfeiting of other money as well as coin, and of various other securities, evidence of indebtedness and the like. The crime of counterfeiting is distinguished from forgery in that in the former there must be a similitude or resemblance to the coin or instrument counterfeited, while in the latter no such resemblance is required. The similitude, it is said, must be such as would deceive a person exercising ordinary caution, but whether it is such in the particular case is generally a 1 Bishop New Cr. Law, § 289; see also, United States v. Abram, 18 Fed. 823. "Counterfeiting is a species of forgery. The term is usually applied to the making and uttering false money or forging bank notes which are the equivalent of money." People v. Molineux, 62 L. R. A. 257, note. 2 May Cr. Law, § 94; see also, Hale v. State, 120 Ga. 183, 47 S. E. 531. 3 United States v. Hopkins, 26 Fei. 443; United States v. Morrow, 1 Wash. (U. S.) 733; United States v. Kuhl, 85 Fed. 624; State v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367; Dement v. State, 2 Head (Tenn.) 505, 75 Am. Dec. 747; Reg. v. Byrne, 6 Cox Cr. Cas. 475; Rex v. Walsh, 1 East P. C. 87. 4 question for the jury. An essential element of the offense is the fraudulent intent, or intent to deceive. Counterfeiting may be a crime under the state statute as well as under the act of Congress, and the fact that it is a crime under the laws of the United States does not deprive the state courts of jurisdiction in so far as the act is a crime under the state law." § 2953. What must be proved-Burden-Presumption.-It is evident that what must be proved depends largely upon the particular offense charged and the particular statute upon which the prosecution is based. All the essential elements of the offense charged, or, in other words, all the facts necessary to constitute that offense must be proved. Thus it has been held necessary in particular cases to prove guilty knowledge, circulation of the money counterfeited,' and the existence of a genuine bank-bill such as is charged to have been counterfeited.10 So, it has been held that intent to defraud a particular person must be proved when alleged.11 And, as already stated, the similitude or resemblance to the genuine must generally be made to appear. But it has been held that it is not necessary to prove that the notes described in the indictment and those given in evidence are the same,12 or that such genuine coin of the same country exists as the counterfeit purports to be in imitation of, as the courts will take 'United States v. Hopkins, 26 Fed. 443; United States v. Stevens, 52 Fed. 120. United States v. King. 5 McLean (U. S.) 208, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15535; Mattison v. State, 3 Mo. 421; People v. Molins, 7 N. Y. Cr. 51, 10 N. Y. S. 130; People v. Page, 1 Idaho 189, 191; People v. White, 34 Cal. 183; Gabe v. State, 6 Ark. 540; but see, United States v. Russell, 22 Fed. 390. • People v. McDonnell, 80 Cal. 285, 22 Pac. 190, 13 Am. St. 159; Commonwealth V. Fuller, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 313; Dashing v. State, 78 Ind. 357; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 625; United States v. Arjona, 120 U. S. 479, 7 Sup. Ct. 628. 7 Brown v. People, 9 Ill. 439; United States v. Fitzgerald, 91 Fed. 374. 16 8 Wash V. Commonwealth, Gratt. (Va.) 530; State v. Morton, 8 Wis. 352; United States v. Roudenbush, Baldw. (U. S.) 514. • State V. Shelton, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 31. 10 State v. Brown, 4 R. I. 528, 70 Am. Dec. 168. 11 Wilkinson v. State, 10 Ind. 546; but see, Sasser v. State, 13 Ohio 453; United States v. Moses, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 725, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 15,825; United States v. Kuhl, 85 Fed. 624. 12 United States v. Moses, 4 Wash. (U. S.) 726, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 15, 825. judicial notice of the coins of their own country;13 and the ingredients of counterfeiting coin need not be proved, even though alleged.14 It has been said that in prosecutions for counterfeiting there can be no presumption of guilty knowledge as a matter of law, but from the existence of facts there may be presumptions of fact.15 Thus, the making of the conterfeit being proved, the intent to use it for an unlawful purpose may and generally will be inferred or be presumed ;16 and the act of knowingly passing a counterfeit being proved, the conclusion of intent to defraud necessarily follows,17 or will, ordinarily at least, be presumed.18 So, in a prosecution for counterfeiting banknotes or coins, evidence that the notes mentioned in the indictment, and others of like kind, together with plates and implements for making them, were found in the possession of defendant, has been held to constitute prima facie evidence that the defendant was the counterfeiter.19 § 2954. Knowledge - Intent-Similar offenses. As already stated, there must be a criminal intent, and knowledge must also be shown, especially where the indictment is for uttering, passing, or having in possession a counterfeit with intent to pass it. But these elements may be infered from circumstances in evidence, and direct evidence is not essential.20 Evidence that the defendant was in company with another person a number of times when the latter passed counterfeit bills,21 and evidence that the accused and some third 13 United States v. Burns, 5 McLean (U. S.) 23, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,691; United States v. King, 5 McLean (U. S.) 208, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15535; see also, United States v. Williams, 4 Biss. (U. S.) 302. 14 State v. Beeler, 1 Brev. (S. Car.) 482; State v. Griffin, 18 Vt. 198. 15 Wash V. Commonwealth, 16 Gratt. (Va.) 530. 10 State v. McPherson, 9 Iowa 53. 17 People v. Page, 1 Idaho 189, 190. 18 United States V. Shellmire, Baldw. (U. S.) 370, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16271. 19 Spencer v. King, 5 McLean (U. S.) 208, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15535. 20 State v. Smith, 5 Day (Conn.) 176, 5 Am. Dec. 132; State v. Brown, 4 R. I. 528, 70 Am. Dec. 168; Rex v. Fuller, Russ. & Ry. C. C. 308; People v. Page, 1 Idaho 189; McGregor v. State, 16 Ind. 9; State v. McPherson, 9 Iowa 53. Evidence that the defendant has been employed in printing genuine bank bills of the kind in question has been held admissible. Commonwealth v. Hall, 4 Allen (Mass.) 305. 21 State v. Spalding, 19 Conn. 233; see also, Finn v. Commonwealth, 5 Rand. (Va.) 701; United States v. Taranto, 74 Fed. 219. |