State v. Collins.

¶1 It does not admit of any Reasonable doubt, that a pail* of dies is an instrument or *192 instruments, within the 4th 'sec. of the act of 1811, ch. 814, upon which the first count is framed ,* and being more generally used, in coinage, than any other instru-js one. up0n which the act would be most likely to operate frequently. It may be said, that as the dies are described, as haying impressed upon them, only the likeness, similitude, figure and resemblance of the sides of a Spanish milled dollar, and not the edges, that they cannot answer the purpose described in the act, of makinga counterfeit similitude, or likeness, of a Spanish milled dollar. But it is for the Jury to consider, whether the dies be calculated to impress the counterfeit similitude, or likeness of a dollar ; for these words in the act, extend the offence beyond an exact imitation of the figures and marks of the coin. For, if the instrument, in point of fact, will impose on the world, in general, it is sufficient, whether the imitation be exact or not. And this is the construction upon those highly penal acts, relative to the coin, in England. Thus, having knowingly, in possession, a puncheon, for the purpose of coining, is within the Statute of 8 <%■ 9 Will. 3, though that alone, without the counter puncheon, will not make the figure: and though such puncheon liad not the letters, yet it was field sufficiently described in the indictment, as a puncheon, which would impress the resemblance of tiie iiead-side of a shilling. — (1 East. P. C. 171.) But if the parts of this indictment, which are employed in a description of tiie dies, were altogether omitted, the charge would fie within the act, for it would then read, that the Defendants had, in their possession, a pair of dies, for the purpose of making coqnterfe.it dollars, which is the crime, in substance, created by the act. As I do not perceive any ground for any other objection, arising from the record, the case having been submitted without agument, my opinion is, that the reasons in arrest fie overruled.