
    * Commonwealth versus Robert Bailey.
    In an indictment for forgery, alleging an instrument to be “ in the words and figures following,” a strict recital is necessary; but the number of a bank-bill, and the figures in its margin, marking its amount, are not parts of the bill, and need not be set out in the indictment.
    The defendant was indicted for uttering a forged and counterfeit bill of the Maine Bank, of five dollars. In this case it was alleged in the indictment that the forged bill was in the words and figures following, viz.—
    
      B. ' No. 237.
    FIVE DOLLARS. ,
    The President, Directors, and Company of the Maine *? Bank, promise to pay N. Shaw, or bearer, FIVE S DOLLARS on demand. — Portland, the 7th day of 95 Feb. 1803.
    D. Hale, Cash’r. Sam. Freeman, Presid’t.
    
    The bill produced and offered in evidence had on it, between the words “five” and “dollars” at the top, the representation of an eagle, with the figure 5 in it.; on the left, just over the signature of the Cashier, was the likeness of a fish, with the figure 5 inscribed; and on the right margin of the bill was another figure 5.
    
      Ashmun, for the defendant,
    objected to the bill being given in evidence to the jury, on account of the variance; contending that as this indictment is drawn, a strict recital was necessary. The indictment undertakes to set out the words and figures of the bill; but the figure 5, which is in three different places on the bill produced, and is used and intended to designate its denomination and amount, is wholly omitted in the indietrhent.
   The Court (Dana, C. J., Strong, Sedgwick, and Thacher, justices) agreed to the principle contended for by the defendant’s counsel, but held that it did not apply to this case. They said that the number of the bill, and the words and figures in the margin, were not parts of the bill, but merely * marks superadded for the convenience of the bank, or of the holder of the bill, and, therefore, not necessary to be set out in an indictment in any case. The whole bill, all that is evidence of a contract, is set out; and set out truly and precisely. 
      
       Vide ante, p. 54, Commonwealth vs. Stow; post, p. 203, Commonwealth vs. Stevens.
      
     