
    Case No. 16,772.
    UNITED STATES v. WRIGHT.
    [2 Cranch, C. C. 68.] 1
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    Dec. Term, 1812.
    Foro ery—Bank-Notes.
    Possession of forged bank-notes, with intent to utter them as true, Í3 not an indictable of-fence.
    Indictment [against Walter Wright] for knowingly having in his possession forged bank-notes with intent to utter them as true.
    Mr. Wallach and Mr. Law, for defendant,
    moved the court to quash the indictment; because: 1. It is only an intent to commit a crime, which intent is not indictable. Eex v. Higgins, 2 East, 5; 4 Bl. Comm. 21; St. 41 Geo. III. c. 39; East, P. C. 881. 2. It does not charge an unlawful intent to injure any person. Nothing can be inferred. At common law it is no crime simply to make a false bank-note unless some person be injured. 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 70, § 11; Eex v. Wheatly, 2 Burrows, 1127; Eex v. Munoz, 2 Strange, 1127. 3. It does not set forth the notes in haee verba. Mason’s Case, East, P. C. 975; Com. v. Morse, 2 Mass. 138.
    Mr. Jones, contra.
    An inchoate act towards the consummation of a crime is indictable. Rex v. Higgins. 2 East, 5. There is a form of such an indictment in C. Cir. Comp. p. 286. for having counterfeit money in his possession with intent to utter it. This court in the case of U. S. v. Williams [Case No. 16.709], decided that in an indictment for forgery, it is not necessary to set forth the forged instrument in haee verba.
   THE COURT

having some doubt, refused to quash the indictment; but after verdict, arrested the judgment.  