
    Stewart against The Commonwealth.
    
      Thursday, May 21.
    In Error.
    An indictmetit stating, that the denlousiy1 stole", for^¡'í7pay-eS «nent of m°iiie otsodoflaps o t the goods and chattels of A B,” is too vague and uncertain. The notes should be more particularly described, and it should be set forth that the money was unpaid on 'them.
    ON a writ of error to the Court of Oyer and Terminer ... ot the county of Tork, it appeared, that an indictment was f°und by the grand jury, that George Stewart, &c. the house of one Abraham Miller, &c. “feloniously burglariously did break and enter, and sundry promissory notes for the payment of money of the value of eighty dollars, of the goods and chattels of the said Abraham Miller, in the said dwelling house, then and there being found, then and there feloniously and burglariously take, did steal, and carry away,” &c. '
    And further, that the said George Stewart, &c. “ with force and arms, sundry promissory notes for the payment of money of the value of eighty dollars, of the goods and chattels.of the said Abraham, Miller, did steal, take, and carry away,” &c.
    The jury found the defendant guilty, and the following reasons were filed in arrest of judgment.
    1. That no crime was laid in the indictment.
    2. That the notes said to have been stolen, were not stated to have been notes of a chartered bank.
    3. That no intention to commit a felony, was laid in the. indictment.
    The case was argued in this Court, on the above exceptions to the indictment, by Carter, for the plaintiff in error, who cited the act of 30th January, 1810, Pamph. L. 14. 4 Bl. Com. 227. 1 Hale, 559. 561. 2 Hawk. b. 2. ch.%5.s. 74. Id. b. 2. ch. 25. s. 60. Act of 19th March, 1810. Pamph. L. 87. Spangler v. The Commonwealth,
      
       and by
    
      Bacon,
    
    for the Commonwealth, who referred to 2 Sm. L. 533. 579, 580. 2 East's Cr. L. 515. 2 Hob: 193. 3 Binn. 537. Opinioh of Yeates J.
    
      
       3 Binn. 533.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Duncan J.

The judgment should be reversed, because it does not appear by the indictment, thát any felony was committed, or intended to be committed, the charge of felony being too vague and uncertain, viz. that “ the defendant feloniously stole, ,took, and carried away sundry promissory notes for the payment of money, of the value of eighty dollars, of the goods and chattels of the said Abraham Miller.” The notes should have been more particularly described, and it should have been set forth, that the money was unpaid on them.

Judgment reversed.  