Indictment for larceny of bank notes, viz: two $20 bank notes of the Farmers' Bank of the State of Delaware; one $10 note of the same bank; and two $2 notes of the Bank of Smyrna.
The State proved the loss of the notes generally; the confession of the prisoner that she stole them, and their recovery; that they were of the value of $20, $10 and $2, respectively.
Fisher, for the prisoner, made the point that there had been no sufficient proof of the genuineness of the notes; and he insisted that the notes should be proved in the usual way by proof of the handwriting of the bank officers: that the defendant could not be convicted on less proof than would be necessary to recover on the notes in a civil action against the bank. He referred to a case of The State vs. Isaac Harris, v., April term, 1839, in which it was said to have been so ruled.
Gilpin, Attorney-general, stated that the uniform practice had been different, and was so from necessity; otherwise there never could be a conviction in the case of a lost note. The witness here had proved the value, which was sufficient proof that the notes were genuine.
The Court. — Harris' case did not go to the extent for which it is now cited; but the court there held that some proof was necessary of the genuineness of the note. (Vide Archb. Cr. Plead. 204-5; Ros. Ev. 506, 579; 6 Johns. Rep. 103; 1 Nott M'Cord 9.)
The defendant was acquitted.