
    
      * Commonwealth versus Jesse Morse.
    The possession of forged bills purporting to be bills of the bank of A, no such bank in fact existing, with intent to pass them as genuine bills, is not an offence within the statute of March 15, 1805.
    At the last April term, the defendant was indicted for that he, at a day and place named, “ falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully obtained, had, and kept in his possession, one certain false and forged piece of paper, purporting to be a true and genuine promissory note of hand for money, issued by a corporation duly and legally established by law under the denomination of the Richmond Bank, and which was of the tenor following, viz.: —
    “ Five Dollars. No. 502.
    “I promise to pay N. Wells, or bearer, on demand, five dollars. For the President, Directors, & Co., of the Richmond Bank. Richmond, the 8th day of January, 1805.
    “ Ezra Young, Cashier. N. Blake, Prest.”
    and of one other false, forged piece of paper, purporting to ue made by a bank and corporation legally established by the denomination of the Salem Bank, and of the tenor following: —
    “ Six Dollars. No. 1491
    
      “ The President, Directors, & Co., of the Salem. Bank, promise to pay N. Green, or bearer, six dollars, on demand. Salem, the 30th day of June, 1805.
    “Paul Clapp, Cashier. W. H. Campbell, Prest.”
    and that the said J. M., at the place and day aforesaid, fraudulently and deceitfully held and kept the same false and forged pieces of paper in his hands and possession, with an intent falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully, to utter and pass the same for and as true and genuine notes of such banks as they severally purported to have been issued by ; —he, the said J. M., then and there well knowing that the same notes were both false and „ forged, as aforesaid, and that there was no such bank or corporation as was in them severally expressed ; — against the peace of the commonwealth, and the law in such case made and provided.”
    To this indictment the defendant demurred generally, and the Attorney-General joined in demurrer.
    
      J. Upham and F. Blake, of counsel for the defendant,
    insisted that the indictment contained no description of an offence either against any statute or at common law.
    * The Attorney-General (Sullivan)
    observed that, bank bills being now the current coin of the state, this crime came within the offence described in the seventh section of the Act  against forgery and counterfeiting, by which it is enacted hat if any person shall possess, within the state, any number of sim ilar pieces of false money or coin, knowing the same to be false, &c., with intent to utter and pass the same as true, every person so offending, and duly convicted thereof, shall be punished, &c.
    
      
       March 15, 1805.
    
   By the Court.

By the 4th section of the statute referred to by the Attorney-General, it is made an offence to have in possession any forged note payable to bearer, made like to any note issued by any bank established by law in this or in any of the United States, with intent to pass it as a genuine note. Neither of the notes described in the indictment is within the description given by this section, as it is alleged that the defendant well knew that no such banks existed as are named in the indictment. Therefore, if the indictment had concluded against the statute, it could not have been maintained; and it would be doing violence to all the rules of construing penal statutes, to extend the provisions of the 7th section to the notes described in this indictment. The allegations amount only to an intention to cheat, which at common law is not indictable, and the indictment does not conclude against any statute.

The defendant was discharged,.  