Commonwealth v. Kent
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The defendant was tried in the municipal court, at Decern ber term, 1842, on an indictment, which alleged that he, at Boston, “on the 1st of October 1842, did knowingly have in his possession a certain mould, pattern, die, puncheon, tool and instrument, adapted and designed for coining and making one side of a counterfeit coin in the similitude of one side or half part of a certain silver coin, called a half dollar, to wit, that side or half par' thereof which represents a…
Read the full summary
The defendant was tried in the municipal court, at Decern ber term, 1842, on an indictment, which alleged that he, at Boston, “on the 1st of October 1842, did knowingly have in his possession a certain mould, pattern, die, puncheon, tool and instrument, adapted and designed for coining and making one side of a counterfeit coin in the similitude of one side or half part of a certain silver coin, called a half dollar, to wit, that side or half par' thereof which represents a spread eagle, and has the words ‘ United States of America,’ ‘ half dollar; ’ said coin, called a half dollar, being…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
The court are of opinion that the ruling and instructions of the municipal court were right.
The statute on which the indictment was founded, Rev. Sts. c. 127, § 18, is extremely comprehensive. The object and policy of the statute, we think, are obvious. It is manifestly so difficult to prove the fact of actually making counterfeit coin, that the statute intended to make the possession of instruments adapted to counterfeiting, with the criminal intent to use them, or cause or permit them to be used, for that purpose, a crime subject to severe punishment. But the gist of the offence is the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. ShyClark County Court of Common Pleas · 1922