
    Wilber Cahoon v. The State.
    Hit is no offense against the statute, March 1, 1835, section 29, to„ pass hills of an unincorporated hank in actual existence.
    Error to the common pleas of Lorain county?
    The plaintiff was indicted at November term, 1838, for uttering .■and publishing a note, “purporting to be issued by the Exporting, .'Mining, and Manufacturing Company’s Bank of Illinois,” and savers it was falsely and fraudulently published, passed, and put ■into circulation by Cahoon, he knowing that such bank never did, ,in fact, exist.
    Upon this indictment Cahoon was put upon his trial. After •the evidence was closed, the prisoner’s counsel prayed the court to instruct the jury, that if they found the note offered in evidence was issued by an existing bank or company, they should .•acquit, whether the bank was incorporated or not. The court ■refused this charge, but instructed the jury, that if they found that the note was issued by an existing company, they should ■ convict, if the prisoner knew that the company had no legal ■ charter from the Illinois legislature. This was excepted to, and the jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to the ■penitentiary for five years; to reverse which, this writ is prose- ■ cuted.
    W. Stillman, for the prisoner.
    No counsel appeared for the state.
   *Judge Wood

delivered the opinion of the court:

This indictment is drawn upon section 29 of the act for the punishment of crimes, passed March 7,1835 (33 Ohio L. 39), which enacts, “that if any person shall make, alter, publish, pass, or put in circulation, any note or notes, bill or bills, purporting to be the note or notes, bill or bills, of a bank, company, or association, which never did, in fact, exist, such person or persons, knowing at the time of publishing, passing, or putting into circulation any such note or notes, bill or bills, that the bank, company, or association, purporting to have issued the same, never did exist, every person so offending shall,” etc.

The record shows that upon the trial, the prisoner’s' counsel, among other things, prayed the court to charge the jury, that if they were satisfied the note offered in evidence was a false note of a bank, company, or association, actually existing in the State of Illinois, they should acquit, whether such bank or company was chartered by the laws of that state or not. This instruction was refused by the court, but they charged the jury, that if they found the note one of an existing company, known to the prisoner as not legally chartered by the laws of Illinois, they should convict. In giving this charge, the court below were in error. The offense is the uttering of such note, knowing it to be of a non-existing’ bank or company, and not the uttering a note knowing it to have been issued by an existing unincorporated bank. Upon this ground the sentence is reversed, and the case remanded to the county for a new trial.

Roswell B. Meeker v. The State.

Error to the common pleas of Lorain.

This case raised precisely the same question as the last, and the same decision was had.  