Lincoln County NcArchives Court.....State, V. Patillo & Saunders 1826
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 February 8, 2009, 8:29 pm

Source: Nc Court Reports Vol 11, 1826
Written: 1826

June Term 1826

STATE v. PATILLO & SAUNDERS. 

From Lincoln.

Promissory notes are not public tokens of themselves; bank notes are; an 
indictment, therefore, for a cheat at common law, by passing 
certain "promissory notes" as and for bank notes, without an averment that 
they resembled bank notes, cannot be sustained.

This was an indictment charging that the defendants, designing and intending 
to defraud one Barnabas West of a mare of the value of twenty 
dollars, "falsely, fraudulently, and unlawfully, did conspire, combine, 
confederate and agree among and between themselves, to obtain and get into 
their hands and possession, of and from the said Barnabas West, the mare 
aforesaid, under a false colour and pretence of paying to him, the said 
Barnabas West, then and there, forty-five dollars of good and lawful current 
bank notes;" and that the defendant Patillo, in pursuance of the conspiracy, 
afterwards did "falsely, fraudulently, unlawfully, and deceitfully, pass to 
the said Barnabas West, one promissory note of twenty dollars, two promissory 
notes of ten dollars, and one promissory note of five dollars, purporting each 
to have been made and signed by one J. F. Randolph; and purporting to (349) be 
made payable to the bearer;" and that Patillo and Saunders in pursuance of the 
conspiracy, did "fraudulently, and falsely pretend and affirm, to him, the 
said Barnabas West," that the said promissory notes were good current bank 
notes; and that the defendants "by the false pretences aforesaid," 
fraudulently obtained possession of the mare; whereas, in truth and in fact, 
the notes were not good current bank notes, but on the contrary, were not 
worth one cent. The indictment concluded at common law. The jury found the 
defendants not guilty of a conspiracy; but that the defendant Patillo was 
guilty of a deceit, in manner and form as charged in the bill of indictment.

The defendant Patillo moved in arrest of judgment, because the indictment did 
not charge a deceit; and because the bills mentioned in the indictment did not 
constitute such a false token as would sustain an indictment for a deceit at 
common law.

The Court, Daniel, Judge, overruled both objections, and passed sentence on 
the defendant, whereupon no appealed to this Court.

Henderson, Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

Bank notes are public tokens, as much so as weights and measures, or the 
alnager's seal; it is not necessary that they should have a common law 
existence, to make the obtaining property, by means of mere counterfeits at 
least, at common law, any more than it is, that a chattel should have had a 
common law existence, to make it the object of trespass or larceny. It is 
sufficient that they have, no matter when, in rented or discovered the 
qualities of a public token, i. e. calculated to inspire public confidence; in 
practice, they represent the coin of our country, and pass currently as money. 
Had this indictment, therefore, charged that the notes passed to the 
prosecutor, bore the likeness and similitude of our common bank notes, and 
that the defendant knew them to be worthless; I have (350) not a doubt but 
that the conviction could have been sustained, and it appears from the 
evidence, that such was the case; but it is to the indictment that we are to 
look, to see what the defendant has done; in that, it is stated that the notes 
passed by the defendant to the prosecutor, purported to be signed by one 
Randolph, and to be payable to bearer, and that they were worthless, without 
any averment or charge that they had any resemblance to bank notes. They are 
discovered, therefore, to be nothing more than common promissory notes, made 
by an individual promising to pay money to the bearer. We cannot view such 
notes as public tokens; these are not the kind of notes which pass with us as 
money. I repeat it, that had it been averted, and had the jury found, that 
they bore the resemblance of our common bank notes, and that the defendant 
knew that they were worthless, the offence would have been complete at common 
law. Whether it comes within our statute, it is not necessary to decide, the 
indictment is not framed upon it.

Judgment arrested.

Additional Comments:
North Carolina Reports, Volume 11
Cases Argued and Determined in the SUPREME COURT of NORTH CAROLINA.
For December Term 1825 and June Term 1826 
by Francis L Hawks (Vol. IV)
Annotated by Walter Clark
Richmond: James E Goode Printing Company, Printers
1897

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/lincoln/court/state1468gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/

File size: 5.1 Kb