#### State vs. Knight.

O’E was indicted of passing counterfeit bills of credit, of the s"u likeness of the genuine bills of credit of cris cíate, in Virginia. — -The indictment was drawn upon the act of 1784, ch. 25, &ec. 4; and whereas there is reason to apprehend thin wicked and til disposed persons resident in the neighboring states, make a practice of cottuierfciting the current bilis of credit of this otate; and by themselves or emissaries, utter or vend die same with an intention to defraud the citizens of this state: lie it therefore enacted, that ail such persons shall be subject to the same mode of trial, and on conviction, liable to the same pains and penalties as if the offence had been committed within the limits of this state, and be prosecuted in the superior court of any district within this state. — —And he was convicted.

Per curiam.

This state cannot declare that an act done in Virginia by a citizen of Virginia, shall be criminal and punishable in this state : our penal laws can only extend to the limits of'' this state, except as to our own citizens: but granting that our-legislature could enact laws for the punishment of offences committed in Virginia, still this clause only extends by implication « to acts clone in Virginia ; and no penal lav/- can be construed bv implication nor otherwise than by the express letter.

lie was discharged.