
    Graham vs. The State.
    An indictment for usury averring a Ioau of money is supported by evidence of a loan of bank paper.
    Graham was indicted in the Circuit Court of Jefferson county. The indictment charges, that “on the 11th day of February, 1843, in the county of Jefferson, William Graham, laborer, unlawfully did reserve, exact, secure and take from one Josiah Denton a larger and greater sum than six per centum per annum for the loan, use and forbearance of one hundred dollars, to wit, at the rate of twenty per centum per annum, to the evil example,” &c. &c.
    The defendant pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried by Judge R. M. Anderson and a jurj^, at the December term, 1843.
    It appeared in evidence, that Denton got from the defendant notes of the Bank of the United States and silver, of the amount of 100 dollars, and that it was received as money on loan for 12 months, and that Denton gave Graham his note for one hundred and twenty dollars, due 12 months afterdate. The prosecutor, Denton, paid Graham several sums on this note at different times. The court charged the jury, that if the notes of the Bank of the United States were estimated as gold and silver by the parties to the contract of loan, there would be no variance, and the proof in that respect would sustain the allegation of a loan of money. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and under the provisions of the act of 1835, ch. 50, ascertained that the defendant had received of the prosecutor the sum of $53 95 usury. The defendant moved the court for a new trial. This motion was overruled and judgment rendered against the defendant on the verdict.
    The defendant appealed.
    
      Peck., for the plaintiff in error.
    There is a variance between the indictment and the proof. See 5 Yerger, 160; Martin & Yerger, 129.
    
      Attorney General, for the State.
    
      Note. — See 6 Terra, 268; 5 Term, 531; 3 Bos. & P. 343; Bacon, tit, Usury.
    
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

William Graham was convicted of the offence of usury at the December term, 1843, of the Circuit Court for the county of Jefferson. The bill of indictment charges, that he “unlawfully did reserve, exact, receive and take from Josiah Denton a larger and greater sum than six per centum per annum, for the loan, use and forbearance of one hundred dollars, to wit, at the rate of twenty per centum per annum, for the loan, use and forbearance of one hundred dollars.” The proof on the trial showed, that part of the one hundred dollars loaned was silver and part U. S. Bank paper; for which reason defendant moved for a new trial, alledging that dollars, the word used in the indictment, means money; that U. S. Bank paper is not money, and that therefore the charge in the indictment is not sustained by the proof.

The motion for a new trial was overruled by the court, and we think correctly. The court at the present term determined, in the case of Crutchfield vs. Robbins, Tingley & Co. that the word money is a generic term, and covers every thing used by common consent as a representation of property, and passing currently from hand to hand as money, whether it be coin or paper. This we consider as settling the question in controversy in the present case; for bank paper is money when passed and received as such; and moreover, the word dollars does not of necessity mean coin, for in common parlance there are paper dollars as well as silver dollars, and the word in that sense applies as well to the one as the other. United States Bank paper is payable in dollars, it passed as dollars, was lent and received in the present case as so many dollars, and the indictment, charging it as one hundred dollars, is supported by the proof that it was U. S. Bank paper for that amount.

Judgment affirmed.  