
    Sherman Hutchins v. The State of Ohio.
    A person indicted for having in his possession a counterfeit bank note, for the purpose of selling, bartering, or disposing of the same, can not be convicted, by proof, of having in possession such note, with intent to pass the same to an innocentporson as true and genuine.
    Sections 22, 29, and 32 of tho act for the punishment of crime respecting counterfeit bank notes, are different and distinct offenses, and proof of tlio one will not support an indictment for either of the others.
    Vanvalkenburg v. The State, reported in 11 Ohio, 404, is’affirmed.
    This is a writ of error to the court of common picas of Fairfield count}’.
    The plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted, under section 29 of the act for the punishment of crimes. Swan’s *Stat, 233, lor having in his possession a counterfeit bank note, for tho purpose of selling, bartering, and disposing of the same.
    A bill of' exceptions was taken which shows that, “on the trial of this caso, evidence was given to the jury lending to show that the defendant,. Hutchins, had in his possession one fivc-dollar counterfeit note, corresponding in description with the noto set forth in tho two counts of the indictment. No evidence was given to show that the defendant had in his possession any other counforfeit note, but that be bad in bis possession counterfeit coim; and there was other evidence tending to show that he know tho note to be counterfeit. The counsel for the defendant asked tho court to charge the jury as follows:
    “ 1. That in order to convict the defendant they should be satisfied of tho possession of the note by tho defendant, knowing it to bo counterfeit, coupled with the intention to barter, sell, or disposo of it in some other way, than in tho usual way of passing counterfeit bank notes as true and genuine.
    “2. That the being detected with the counterfeit note in his possession, knowing it to bo counterfeit, coupled with an intent to utter and publish, or pass it as true and genuine, would not mako a case of guilt under tho indictment.
    “Which instructions the court refused to give, or cither of them ; but did chargo and instruct tho jury that, as to tho intent of tho defendant when detected in tho possession of the counterfeit note, if tho jury should be satisfied that the intent was to pass the said note as true and genuine, it would bo sufficient, and that there need not be proof of any intent to sell, barter, or otherwise dispose of said note as a counterfeit note. To which several rcJusals of tho court to instruct and charge the jury, and also to tho said charge and instructions so given, the defendant, by his counsel, excepts.”
    H. St an berv, for plaintiff in error.
    T. Ewing, for the state.
   Read, J.

This case is settled by tho authority of Vanvalkenburg v. State of Ohio, 11 Ohio, 404.

*The crimes defined in sections 22, 29, and 32 of the act for the punishment of crimes, are distinct and different.

Section 22 defines tho crime of “uttering and publishing, as true and genuine,” counterfeit bank notes to defraud innocent persons. Section 29 is for “selling, bartering, and disposing of” such, to guilty and willing receivers. Section 32 is, “for attempting to pass,” with intent to defraud.

Those arc different and distinct crimes, and proof of the one will not support an indictment fo.r either of the others.

The charge of tho court was therefore erroneous, and tho judgment is reversed. Judgment reversed.  