instructed that it is unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices.1 b. PERSONS NOT OFFICERS Of Bank. Persons other than officers of banks are competent witnesses to prove that a bill which purports to have been drawn on a certain bank is a counterfeit.2 c. EXPERTS. Experts may be permitted to testify to the false character of the bills, without requiring proof that there is a bank in existence issuing genuine bills of which those in question might be counterfeits.3 -- 7. Judicial Notice. The courts will take judicial notice of the legal coins of the United States, including those made current by Act of Congress, and, it seems, of paper currency; therefore the existence of these coins need not be proved. reverse. It was held that there was evidence to go to the jury that the medal resembled in figure a current coin. 1. Accomplice. - Com. v. Price, 10 Gray (Mass.) 472, 71 Am. Dec. 668. In this case it is held that, the evidence of accomplices being unsupported, it is unsafe, because of its corrupt and suspicious source, to convict upon it without confirmation. The court should advise the jury to acquit; but if upon the whole evidence the jury should feel convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, their verdict will not be disturbed. Such Evidence Unsupported Insufficient. The evidence of an accomplice showing that he received the counterfeit coin charged in the indictment from the defendant, unsupported by corroborating evidence connecting the defendant with the coin described, is insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. State v. Pepper, II Iowa 347. See Reg. v. Rogers, 2 Moo. C. C. 85; Reg. v. Williams, C. & M. 259, 41 E. C. L. 145. For a Full Discussion of this question, see the title ACCOMPLICES, vol. I, p. 398. Feigned Accomplice. - The rule that a defendant cannot be convicted of a criminal offense on the testimony of an accomplice, unless the same is corroborated, does not apply to a feigned accomplice. People v. Farrell, 30 Cal. 316. Act of One, Act of All. - If there is a concert of action between two or more to pass a counterfeit note, or any joint or concurrent action in passing it, the act of one is evidence against the other, and the possession of counterfeit notes by one is the possession of all. Hinman, I Baldw. (U. S.) 292; Martin v. Com., 2 Leigh (Va.) 745. See the title CONSPIRACY, vol. 6, p. 830. U. S. v. 2. Persons Not Officers of the Bank. State v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367; State v. Woodruff, Tappan (Ohio) 58; State v. Tutt, 2 Bailey L. (S. Car.) 44, 21 Am. Dec. 508; State v. Anderson, 2 Bailey L. (S. Car.) 565; State v. Hooper, 2 Bailey L. (S. Car.) 37, denying State v. Petty, Harp. L. (S. Car.) 59. See also Hess v. State, 5 Ohio 5, 22 Am. Dec. 767; State v. Lawrence, Brayt. (Vt.) 78. No one is competent to testify as to the genuineness of a signature who is not acquainted with the signer's handwriting from seeing him write, or from frequently seeing specimens of it, or from a comparison before the jury of the questionable handwriting with specimens produced, admitted, or clearly proved to be not only genuine, but not got up for the occasion. State v. Brown, 4 R. I. 528, 70 Am. Dec. 168. But a bill may be proved to be counterfeit by the person who knows the signatures of the president and cashier by having seen the bills in circulation. Tharpee v. Gisburne, 2 C. & P. 21, 12 E. C. L. 8; Greaves v. Hunter, 2 C. & P. 477, 12 E. C. L. 225; Com. v. Carey, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 47; State v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367; Furber v. Hilliard, 2 N. H. 480; Johnson v. Daverne, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 134, 10 Am. Dec. 198; State v. Allen, 1 Hawks (8 N. Car.) 6, 9 Am. Dec. 616; Com. v. Smith, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 568; State v. Ravelin, 1 D. Chip. (Vt.) 295; Martin v. Com., 2 Leigh (Va.) 745. A witness acquainted with the handwriting of the president of the bank will be permitted to prove the falsity of the signatures to the bill. State v. Stalmaker, 2 Brev. (S. Car.) 1. A witness is competent to prove that a note is counterfeit, who has been for ten years employed as cashier of a bank, and in that capacity has received and passed away a great number of the notes of the bank, without ever having had one returned as a counterfeit, and who swears that he believes he could readily distinguish between a genuine and a counterfeit note, not only from the handwriting of the signature, but also from the paper, engraving, and general appearance of the note. State v. Harris, 5 Ired. L. (27 N. Car.) 287. In People v. Badger, 1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. (N. Y. Ct. Sess.) 543, it was held that, in order to prove the signatures alleged to be forged, the testimony of those who have seen the parties write, or have corresponded with them, must be given. In the absence of such evidence, the testimony of brokers and others well acquainted will be received. 3. Experts. Jones v. State, II Ind. 357: Johnson v. State, 2 Ind. 652. See also Hess v. State, 5 Ohio 5, 22 Am. Dec. 767. Merchants and Others. - The testimony of merchants and others who are in the habit of receiving, scrutinizing, and paying away banknotes is competent to prove them counterfeit. Watson v. Cresap, I B. Mon. (Ky.) 195, 36 Am. Dec. 572. Bankers. Bankers are also competent. Atwood v. Cornwall, 28 Mich. 336, 15 Am. Rep. 219. For a Full Discussion of this topic, see the title EXPERT AND OPINION EVIDENCE. McLean 4. Judicial Notice. U. S. v. King, (U. S.) 208; U. S. v. Burns, 5 McLean (U. S.) 23. 3. Evidence in Defense. When a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution, it is competent for the defendant to rebut it. This he can do by facts and circumstances tending to show that he supposed the bill or coin was genuine; that it was so in fact; or that he resorted to the ordinary and approved sources of information to ascertain its character, and the like.1 XI. PUNISHMENT. -In Ancient and Medieval Times counterfeiting was deemed a treason, sometimes high and sometimes petit, and was punishable accordingly.* In Modern Times, in both England and the United States, it is regulated in all of its various phases by statute, which of course fixes its punishment.3 At Common Law in England counterfeiting the king's money was treason and a felony; but passing, uttering, etc., and, it seems, counterfeiting foreign coin current there, were only misdemeanors. Now in England, by Statute, it is a felony to counterfeit current coin of any kind.5 At Common Law in the United States, if it was a crime at all, counterfeiting was only a misdemeanor. Present State of the Law. But it is now regulated entirely by statutes, the state statutes usually declaring it to be a felony, and the federal statutes making it a misdemeanor only. Good Character may also be shown as evidence of his intention. U. S. v. Kenneally, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 122. See also the title CHARACTER (IN EVIDENCE). Drunkenness of the accused at the time of the passing of the alleged counterfeit bill is a proper matter to be submitted to the jury, and should have its just weight in determining whether the defendant knew the bill to be counterfeit. Pigman v. State, 14 Ohio 555, 45 Am. Dec. 558. But drunkenness is no defense if the defendant was possessed of his reason and was capable of knowing whether the bill passed by him was good or bad. U. S. v. Roudenbush, 1 Baldw. (U. S.) 514. Intent to Pass in Another State is no defense. See Com. v. Cone, 2 Mass. 132; Com. v. Davis, 11 Gray (Mass.) 4. Entire Consideration. To constitute a sale or exchange within the statute, the fact that the defendant did not receive a consideration for a transfer of the entire interest in the bill is no defense. State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236. Genuine Bills of the Particular Denomination. Nor is it a defense that genuine bills of the denomination charged were never issued by the bank. State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236; Trice v. State, 2 Head (Tenn.) 591. See Com. v. Whitmarsh, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 233. 2. By a Law of the Emperor Constantine false coiners were declared guilty of high treason, and were condemned to be burned alive. 2 Code Theod., De Falsa Moneta, 1. 9. In Athens they were punished capitally. In England, before the time of Edward III., counterfeiting was considered petit treason; in Edward III.'s reign it was made high treason. 4 Bl. Com. 84, 88. 3. 24 and 25 Victoria, c. 98, 99; Rev. Stat. U. S., $$ 5415, 5457, 5458. And see the vari ous state statutes. 4. 1 Hawk. P. C., $$ 55, 56; East Cr. L., c. 4, 26; Fox v. Ohic, 5 How. (U. S.) 410; U. S. v. Field, 16 Fed. Rep. 778. 5. 24 and 25 Vict., c. 99. 6. May's Cr. Law, § 94; Wilson v. State, I Wis. 184. 7. See various state statutes. Harman 7. State, II Ind. 311; Murray v. Com., 13 Met. (Mass.) 514; State v. Knight, Tayl. (3 N. Car.) 65. Hard Labor. By the Pennsylvania statute punishment at hard labor may be inflicted upon one convicted of passing a counterfeit note of a bank of another state. Lewis . Com., 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 551. 8. U. S. v. Coppersmith, 4 Fed. Rep. 198; U. S. v. Yates, 6 Fed. Rep. 861; U. S. v. Wynn, 9 Fed. Rep. 886; U. S. v. Petit, 11 Fed. Rep. 58; U. S. v. Field, 16 Fed. Rep. 778, and note, which see specially; and In re Wilson, 18 Fed. Rep. 33; Miller v. People, 3 Ill. 233: Wilson v. State, 1 Wis. 184. Importing Constitutional Power to Punish. Congress has the constitutional power to punish the crime of passing, or bringing into the United States with intent to pass, counterfeit coin. U. S. v. Marigold, 9 How. (U. S.) 560; People v. White, 34 Cal. 183. COUNTERPART. (See the title DEEDS.) A counterpart is one of two corresponding copies of a written instrument. When the several parts of an indenture are interchangeably executed by the several parties, that part or copy which is executed by the grantor is usually called the original, and the rest are counterparts. A counterpart is, properly, executed by the grantee only, and is not strictly the same as a duplicate. COUNTER SECURITY. See the titles SUBROGATION; SURETYSHIP. COUNTERSIGN. (See also SIGN.)-To countersign an instrument is to sign what has already been signed by a superior; to authenticate by an additional signature. The term usually has reference to the signature of a subordinate in addition to that of his superior by way of authentication of the execution of the writing to which it is affixed, and denotes a complete execution of the paper. 1. 2 Bl. Com. 296; 1 Steph. Com. 483. 2. Doe v. Smith, 8 Ad. & El. 255, 35 E. C. L. 387. See DUPLICATE. 3. People v. Brie, 43 Hun (N. Y.) 327; Fifth Ave. Bank v. Forty-second St., etc., R. Co., 137 N. Y. 240, in which case it was held, where the defendant's secretary and transfer agent countersigned and sealed a certificate of stock, and put it in circulation, that he declared in the most formal manner that it had been properly executed by the defendant, and that every essential requirement of law and by-laws had been performed to make it the binding act of the company. The court in that case said: "It is very clear that under the regulations adopted by the defendant, and pursuing the mode of procedure which it had prescribed, the final act in the issue of a certificate of stock was performed by its secretary and transfer agent, and that when he countersigned it and affixed the corporate seal and delivered it with the intent that it might be negotiated, it must be regarded, so long as it remained outstanding, as a continuing affirmation by the defendant that it had been lawfully issued, and that all the conditions precedent upon which the right to issue it depended had been duly observed. Such is the effect necessarily implied in the act of countersigning. This word has a well-defined meaning both in the law and in the lexicon. To countersign an instrument is to sign what has already been signed by a superior, to authenticate by an additional signature, and usually has reference to the signature of a subordinate in addition to that of his superior by way of authentication of the execution of the writing to which it is affixed, and it denotes the com plete execution of the paper. (Worcester's Dict.) When, therefore, the defendant's secretary and transfer agent countersigned and sealed this certificate and put it in circulation, he declared in the most formal manner that it had been properly executed by the defendant, and that every essential requirement of law and of the by-laws had been performed to make it the binding act of the company." A statute of Missouri provided for the auditing and allowance of two classes of claims, one including claims on file in the office of the quartermaster-general, denominated irregular claims, including generally quartermasters' 7 C. of L.-57 897 war. supplies; the other including claims, such as the one in question, of officers and soldiers of the militia for services rendered during the The act provided for the allowance of the first class of claims by a commission, of which the quartermaster-general was a member, and directed that they should be certified by the acting quartermaster-general of the state. It authorized the acting paymastergeneral to examine such of the latter class of claims as were on file in his office, and provided that when he should find them correct and just he should allow the same and indorse his allowances thereon; and required a duplicate of each claim allowed, to be filed in his office. It then directed that " he shall issue a certificate of state indebtedness for the amount allowed thereon, which certificate shall be signed by the governor and countersigned by the acting paymaster-general, and shall read as follows: " A form of certificate was then given, which at its foot contained on the left side the word countersigned, followed by a space for the name, which space was followed by the words "acting quartermaster-general of Missouri." At the left lower corner of the cretificate in question was the following signature: "J. D. Grafton, Acting Paymaster-General." It was held, that as there was a direct conflict between the mandatory provisions of the act and the form prescribed to carry them into effect, the court would construe the act so as to carry into effect the intent of the legislature displayed in it, and so as to require that the officer whose duty it was made to examine the claim upon which the certificate was issued should sign and authenticate the certificate. The court said: "The makers, in the common acceptation of the term, of the certificate were the governor and the quartermaster-general. The acting paymaster-general was required to countersign the instrument so signed by the other officers, when, and then only, it became a completed instrument. In the making of the paper itself the part taken by the acting paymaster-general was auxiliary and subordinate to the previous signatures of the governor and of the quartermaster-general. To countersign is to sign what has already been signed by a superior, to authenticate a writing.' People v. Brie, 43 Hun (N. Y.) 317. Volume VII. COUNTIES. By A. S. H. BRISTOW. I. DEFINITION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS, 900. II. ORIGIN AND HISTORY, 904. III. CREATION AND ORGANIZATION, 904. 1. Source of Creation, 904. 2. Mode of Establishing and Determining Boundaries, 905. 4. De Facto Organization, 907. 5. Fudicial Notice of Counties, 908. IV. ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES, 908. 2. Constitutional Limitations, 909. b. Requirement of Submission of Question to Popular Vote, 909. c. Limitations upon Reduction of Area, 910. d. Prohibition as to Interference with Other Political Divisions, 911. e. How Constitutionality of Alteration to Be Called in Question, 912. 3. Effects of Alteration, 912. a. On County Rights and Liabilities, 912. (1) Status Quo of Parent County Maintained as a General Rule, 912. (2) Apportionment by Statute, 914. (3) Whether Apportionment Must Be Contemporaneous with Divi sion of Territory, 919. (4) By Whom Apportionment May Be Made, 920. (5) Mode of Enforcement of Apportionment, 921. (6) Liability of Annexed Territory for Debts of County to Which Annexed, 921. b. On Vested Rights Between Third Persons, 922. c. On County Government, 922. d. On Jurisdiction of Courts, 923. (1) Before New Organization Is Accomplished, 923. (2) After Organization of New County, 923. e. On Tenure of Office of Officer of Old County Residing in New County, 924. f. On Other Political Divisions, 925. V. ANNEXATION OF COUNTIES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES, 925. VI. POWERS, 926. 1. In General, 926. 2. Ordinary Corporate Powers, 926. a. To Sue and Be Sued, 926. (1) In General, 926. (2) In Particular Actions, 928. (3) Employment of Counsel, 929. b. To Have Corporate Seal, 929. c. To Make Contracts, 929. (1) In General, 929. (2) To Borrow Money, 932. (3) To Issue Bonds and Other Securities, 933. d. To Acquire and Hold Property, 933. (1) In General, 933. 3. Governmental Functions, 937- b. Provision for Internal Improvement, 937 c. Aid of Enterprises of Quasi-public Nature, 937. 4. By Whom Powers Are to Be Exercised, 939. a. In General, 939. b. Delegation of Authority by County Agents, 940. VII. DUTIES AND LIABILITIES, 941. 1. Generally, 941. 2. On Contracts, 942. a. In General, 942. b. Implied Contracts, 945. c. Voluntary Services, 947. d. Liability to Assignee of Contract, 947. e. Effect of Temporary Abandonment of Organization on Liability, 947 3. In Tort, 947; a. General Rule, 947. b. Negligence in Performance of Corporate Duties, 948. (1) In Genera!, 948. (2) Negligence in Construction and Maintenance of County Buildings, 949: (3) Injuries Caused by Defective Highways or Bridges, 950. c. Neglect of Special Duty Imposed with Consent of County, 953. d. Tort Ratified and Benefits Retained by County, 953. 4. Liability for Interest, 954. 5. Some Specific Duties and Liabilities, 954. a. Expenses Connected with Public Offices, 954. b. Expenses Connected with the Administration of Justice, 955. g. Taxation, 957. 6. Enforcement of Liabilities, 957. a. Presentation of Claims for Auditing and Allowance, 957- c. Execution, 964. d. Mandamus, Attachment, and Garnishment, 965. VIII. LEGISLATIVE CONTROL, 965. 1. In General, 965. 2. Over Finances, 966. 3. a. County Property and Revenues, 966. b. County Indebtedness, 970. Over Remedies, 972. 4. Validation of Void Acts, 972. CROSS-REFERENCES. For matters of PROCEDURE, see the title COUNTIES, vol. 5, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PLEADING AND PRACTICE, p. 294. For other matters of SUBSTANTIVE LAW and EVIDENCE related to this subject, see the following titles in this work: ADVERSE POSSESSION, vol. 1, p. 878; BOARDS OF HEALTH, vol. 4, p. 596; BRIDGES, vol. 4, p. 918; CLERKS OF COURTS, vol. 6, p. 132; CORONERS, ante, p. 598; COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, post; COUNTY-SEAT, post; COURTS, and references there given; ELECTIONS; HIGHWAYS; HOUSES OF |