Commonwealth v. Stevens
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The defendant was indicted for forging a thirty-dollar bill of the Bevei ly bank, and for uttering the same. In both counts, the bill was laid to be of the tenor following, viz., [and set out the bill.] The defendant pleaded not guilty.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
(Dana, C. J., Sedgwick, Sewall, and Thacher, justices) ruled that the number of the bill, and the words “ thirty dollars ” at the head of it, were not parts of the bill, and, therefore, not necessary to be set out; and they mentioned the case of Robert Bailey, at the last September term in Hampshire, in which the Court were' unanimously of the same opinion. [Ante, p. 62.]
The defendant’s counsel then objected to the bill going in evidence, because in the first count there was no allegation of an intent to defraud, and in the second count, a part of the date, viz., the words and…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Lewis v. BlumeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Porter v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1860
- Langdale v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
- Wilson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1904
- Commonwealth v. RossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.