
    The State vs. Edward Evans.
    
      Larceny.
    
    An indictment for larceny charged that the defendant stole of the proper goods and chattels of the prosecutor “ a ten dollar hill of the currency of the country, commonly called paper money, of the value of ten dollars — Held, a sufficient specification of the stolen article.
    Evidence that the hill stolen, “was greenback and good money,'” is sufficient proof of value.
    BEFOBE T. B. LOGAN, ESQUIBE, DISTBICT JUDGE, WILLIAMSBUBG, 1867.
    The report of the District Judge is as follows:
    
      “ This was an indictment for stealing a ten dollar bill. Peter McLain, the prosecutor, swore that the defendant confessed to him that he had stolen the money; and defendant’s father gave him a ten dollar bill in place of the one which his son had stolen. Peter McLain is illiterate, but swore that the bill stolen ' was greenback and good money.’ There was no proof that the bill stolen was genuine, nor whether it was of the National Bank currency or United States treasury note. I was satisfied of the defendant’s guilt. I instructed the jury that they must be satisfied of the genuineness of the bill before they could find the defendant guilty. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty.
    “ The defendant gave notice of appeal on the grounds annexed.”
    • 1. Because the indictment charges that the defendant “ did steal, take, and carry away ten dollars, a ten dollar bill of the currency of the country, commonly called paper money, of the value of ten dollars;” but does not charge that there was any sum due on the note and unsatisfied at the time of the alleged theft.
    2. Because it was neither charged in the indictment nor proved on the trial that the note said to have been stolen was genuine; and the only proof offered was of the loss of “ a ten dollar bill of greenback money and by a witness who could neither read nor write, and did not know whether he lost a national bank note or a United States treasury note of the denomination mentioned, and could not distinguish a counterfeit from a genuine bill.
    3. Because it was charged in the indictment that the bill said to have been lost was “ of the value of ten dollars,” and it was not proved at the trial to have been of any value.
    4. Because the allegations in the indictment were not supported by the proof.
    5. Because the indictment, is insufficient, and otherwise defective; and the verdict erroneous, not warranted by the proof, and otherwise contrary to law.
    
      Dozier & Porter, lor motion.
    
      Pressley, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Wardlaw, A. J.

The Act of 1866 ' concerning the Criminal Law, (13 Stat. 407, § 14,) in enumerating the subjects of petty larceny, includes “ any article of goods, choses in action, bank bills, bills receivable, chattels, or any article of personalty” — below the value of twenty dollars: the indictment bere charges that the defendant stole of the proper goods and chattels of the prosecutor, “a ten dollar bill of the currency of the country, commonly called paper money, of the value of ten dollars.” This seems to be a sufficient specification of the article stolen according to the precedents approved in the State vs. Smart, 4 Rich. 363; and the evidence that the bill was greenback and good money” is sufficient proof of value.

The motion is dismissed.

DunkiN, 0. J., and Inglis, A. J., concurred.

Motion dismissed.  