
    Thomas Thompson v. The State of Ohio.
    1. In describing a bank-bill, in an indictment for uttering and publishing it as true and genuine, when it was false and forged, it is not improper to set out the names and residence of the engravers, as the same appear upon the margin of the bill.
    2. The first section of the act of May 1, 1854, to prohibit the circulation of foreign bank-bills, etc. (Swan’s Rev. Stat. 116), did not exclude such bank-bills from the operation of section 22 of the act of July 1,1835, for the punishment of crimes, but the uttering and publishing false, forged, and counterfeit bank-bills of less denomination than ten dollars upon foreign banks, as true and genuine, was within the provisions of said section 22.
    This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Ashland county.
    At the March term, 1855, of the court of common pleas of Ashland county, Thomas Thompson was tried, convicted, and sentenced upon an indictment for uttering and publishing, as true and genuine, a false and counterfeit bank-note, purporting to be a three-dollar note of the Merchants) Bank then in existence in the State of Massachusetts, duly authorized by the laws of that state to issue such notes.
    Upon the trial of the case, Thompson’s counsel objected to the bank-note described in the indictment being given *in evidence by the prosecution, for the reason that the note was described in the indictment as containing the words “Bawdon, Wright, Hatch & Co., New York,” when said words in fact only appear upon the margin of the note. The court overruled this objection, and permitted the note to be- given in evidence; to which Thompson’s counsel excepted. And the jury having returned a ve: diet of guilty against the accused, his counsel filed a motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, which motion was overruled, and judgment entered upon the verdict. To reverse this judgment, Thompson prosecutes this writ of error. And it is assigned for error:
    1. That there was a variance between the bank-bill given in evidence and the one described in the indictment.
    2. That the bank-bill was one'of no value, its circulation within this state being prohibited by statute.
    
      Bull & Me Garty, for plaintiff in error.
    
      G. P. Wolcott, attorney-general, for the state.
   Sutliff, J.

The only fact relied upon to sustain the allegation of variance, is that the words “Bawdon, Wright, Hatch & Co., New York,” upon the bill offered in evidence, appeared upon the margin of the bill. The indictment, after the statement that the forged note was “in the letters and figures following,” sets for a copy of the note; and immediately under the signatures of the cashier and president, had expressed, at the foot, the words “Bawdon, Wright, Hatch & Co., New York.” The same words on the original bill (which is made part of the bill of exceptions) appear in the same relative position as expressed in the copy set forth in the indictment. The only objection therefore to these words in the indictment, is to the fact of their being set forth in the indictment, rather than the manner of their being expressed. It is urged by counsel, *that being set forth in the indictment as part of the copy, represents them as material words and part of the bill or note, like the other signatures thereon; whereas, upon inspection of the original bill, it appears, evidently, that these words are no part of the note, but are only designed to represent the names of the engravers of the bill. Therefore, to this argument it might be sufficient to say, inasmuch as the words are the same, and their relative position the same in the copy as in the original, it would follow that there is no variance upon which the objection to the bill being given in evidence could rest. And the fact that the words are no part of tho note, and so immaterial, could not sustain the objection to giving the note in evidence, on the ground of variance. But as a description of the note, like the numbers or letters, the words were very properly inserted in the copy, although not operative words in the bill.

The other objection rests upon section 1 of the act to prohibit the circulation of foreign bank-bills, passed May 1, 1854.

This section provides as follows: “ That from and after the first day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, firm, or body corporate, to pass, transfer, or circulate, or cause to be transferred or circulated, or to receive or cause to be received, any bank-bill or note of a less denomination than ten dollars, unless said bank-bill or note shall have been issued by, and made payable at, one of the banks of this state, in accordance with the laws of this state; provided, however, that the mere transfer or receiving of such unlawful paper bona fide, for the purpose of sending the same directly out of this state for redemption, shall not be deemed a violation of the provisions of this act.” v

It is urged by counsel on behalf of the plaintiff in error, that by force of this statute, it apjmars to have been imj>ossible that the bank-bill was passed by the accused *with intent “ to prejudice, damage, or defraud,” for that the bank-bill could not, if genuine, be legally passed, or circulated in this state, and was therefore alike worthless, whether true or genuine.

The statute prohibiting the passing foreign bank-bills of a less denomination than ten dollars, for ordinary purposes of circulation within this state, does not destroy the value of such notes. In the hand of the owner such notes still have the value of promissory notes, and are of unimpaired validity against their makers, and retain their value in market without the state. See the case of Starkey v. The State, 6 Ohio St. 267. If, therefore, it were necessary that a-genuine bank-bill should be of real value in order to render one liable for uttering and passing as true and genuine a false, forged, or counterfeit bill, the objection would not obtain in this case. The jury have found from the evidence that the accused did pass such a false and counterfeit bank-bill as described in the statute under which indicted, and with the fraudulent intent expressed; and we think the record shows their finding sustained by the evidence. The judgment of the court of common pleas upon that verdict was, therefore, correctly pronounced, and is affirmed by this court.

Brinkerhoee, C. J., and Soott, Peok, and Gholson, JJ., concurring.  