wise and beneficial, and that cOJ;1gress has no constitutional power to abridge that right, the answer is that no citizen is required to hold a public office, and if he is unwilling to do so upon such conditions as are prescribed by that department of the government which creates the office, fixes its tenure, and regulates its incidents, it is !lis duty to resign. . In reaching the conclusion that the statute is not obnoxious to the objections which have been.suggested, we have given force to the presumption in favor of its constitutionality which it is the duty of the judiciary to apply to all legislative enactments. This presumption should prevail in all conflicts of interpretation and all doubtful implications of constitutional power, so as, if possible, to sustain the validity of legislative Il.ction. We have examined the minor points raised upon the argument and presented in the brief of counsel relating to the rulings upon the trial, but do not deem it necessary to discuss them. We think them to be without merit. The motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial is denied.
SA.ME V. SA.ME.
aircuit Court, D. Ma88ac7l/U88tt,. July 26, 1882.)
Where a coin which had been regularly coined at the mint was afterwards punched and mutilated, and an appreciable amount of silver removed from it, and the hole plugged up with base mental, or with any substance other than silver, it is an act of counterfeiting; but it Is otherwise where the hole was punched with a sharp instrument, leaving all the silver in the coin, though crowding it into a different shape.
The United States Attorney, for plaintiff. Geo. F. Verry and T. J. Morrison, for defendant. Before GRAY and LOWELL, JJ. LOWELL, C. J. The defendant was convicted upon two indictments charging him with passing counterfeit silver coins of the denomination of quarter dollars and half dollars, knowing them to be counterfeit. The coins in question had had small holes made in them, and these holes had been filled with some base metal and passed by the defendant, with knowledge of their condition. Some of the holes had
UNITED STATES V. LISSNER.
been punched with a sharp instrument, involving no loss of silver; others were made by drilling out a part of the silver, though not' with any intention of using the silver drilled out. Sil,er cojns with small holes made in them are not fully cqrrent, some persons refusing and others accepting them. We understand that the defendant bought the coins at a slight discount and pltssed them for their nominal He probably did not cona.i,der himself guilty of passing counterfeit money; but he of doing an act which ,the law is to characterize. The poiJlt new one, and ,the le/l.rned having much doubt upon it, ruled, for the purposes of, the trial, that a coin which had been regularly <loined at the mint, and afterwards punched or mutilated, res)tored to the similitude of )1. genuine coin, by the insertion of any mfiltal,.(meaning b.Rse metal,) countlilrf(;lit. To this ;L ' Silver coins of the denominations, of dollars and h"'lf dQllars are required to be mlJ.de tOf a certain weight and fineness, and are lawful tender in payment of debts ,to the amount of $1.0. (Rev. St. §§ 3513, 3586; St.;fune 9,1879, c.3; ,21 St. 7;) and are to,pe received by the treasury inexchan,geAor lawful money in sum!!' of $20, or any June 9, 1879, c. 12, § 1; 21 St.. 7.) , In the case of gold coins tl1e law that when reduced in weigbt below the ,standard they So good tender at a proportionate valuation. Rev. St. § We find no such provision made for silver coins. If such a coin has had an appreciable amount of silver removed from it, we cannot say that it remains a good coin for its original value, or even for a proportionate value. If, then, the hole is plugged with base metal, or with any substance other than silver, this act is an act or counterfeiting, because it is making something appear to be a good coin for its apparent value which was not so before. In the English case, Reg. v. Hermann, Law Rep. 4 Q. B. D. 284, cited by the United States, a gold coin had been filed away until the milling was destroyed, and then a new milling had been made. A majority of the court held that this coin was Two able judges :dissented, but one of them said that if any base metal had been added to the coin to make up the weight,he should not have doubted -that it was counterfeit. If that case had been like this, there would, we suppose, been no dissent. We dqnot doubt that the of tho court was sound, because tpe milling WIillS actnally feited
The fraudulent altel'ation of a bank.note to make it appear of more than its true value, and other similar aots' whioh are held to be forgery, are analogous. Weare therefore of opinion' that the ruling and conviction were proper in respeot to those coins whioh had been drilled and afterwards filled up. On the other hand; we do not oonsider it a oriminal aot, whatever the intent may have been, to add base metal to a good coin, and we see no gronnd for holding that a hole punohed through a eoin' with a sharp instrument, crowding the silver into a slightly different shape, but leaving it all in the coin, has any effeot to render it less valuable or less lawful tender than before. The statutes above oited are silent upon this exaot question; but we think it cleal' that a silver coin, duly issued from the mint, rema:ins .of full value so long as it ret8iins all the appearanoe of' It' coin; and' does besides contain all its original weight and fineness. This being so; we 'oannot regard the addition of something to it as a criltlinalact of oounterfeiting. Passing such acoin works no injury to the person to w110m it is passed. The pleadings and evidenoe reported do not enable us to discnminate between the counts'whioh 'apply to the one and to the other kind of alteration. We must; therefole,order new trials. Counsel will probably be able to arrange for a default upon suohoount or aomits as relate to what we hold to be counterfeited coin· . set aside.
v. MEnJBand others.
May 20, 1882.)
(Circuit 'Court, 8. D. New York.
OONSPnl.AOY-AcTION FOR DAMAGES-V1ilRDIOT.
The verdict on a 11 civil ,action for damages, will be regarded, on motion to set it aside, as ap affirml)Mve fiUl:png upon the issues Which were presented for their determillation. So; where the verdict was fora large amount against t.wo of the defendknts, and 1orblitnomi'nal damages against the third defendant, such defendant is not injured, by the finding of nominal damllges agA-iust him, and have the v,erdict set aside though it was ,inconsistent with the charge of the ,court. . , ,
TW. G. Willson, f(jt plaintiff: J()sephH. Choate,JOIt defendanll;' ' i, SHIPMAN, D. J. This is a action to recover d1iliiages fot a. conspiraoy. The jury returned a verdiot in favor of the plaintiff for