State v. Dalton.
From Rutherford.
An indictment charging ihe Defendant with forging a receipt against a “ book account,” is too indefinite : the term is not known to the law, and in common parlance may mean money, goods, labour and whatever may be brought into account : had the charge been forging an acquittance for goods, the evidence of forging the pa. per described in the indictment, would have been proper for the jury.
Indictment in the following words, viz;
The Jurors for the State, upon their oath present, that James Dalton of the County of Rutherford, on the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, with force and arms in the County of Rutherford* by his own head and imagination, feloniously and wittingly, did falsely forge and make, and cause to be falsely forged and made, and did feloniously, willingly and wittingly assent in falsely making, forging and counterfeiting a certain acquittance and receipt against a book account, in the words, letters and figures following, that is to say: September 3d, 1816, IIeceived of Janies Dalton, his book accomptiu full, John Logan, with intent to defraud one John Logan, of the county of Rutherford, aforesaid, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of tiie state.
And the. jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said James Dalton, afterwards* to wit, on the said first day of October, one thousand, eight hundred and seventeen, aforesaid, with force and arms in the county aforesaid, a certain false, forged and counterfeited acquittance and receipt, against a book account, feloniously, wittingly, knowingly and corruptly, did, show forth in evidence as true, which said last men. tioned acqu itlance and receipt is in the words, letters and figures following, that is to say; September 3d, 1816, Received of James Dalton his book accompt in full: John Logan; with an intent to defraud the said John Logan, of the County of Rutherford, aforesaid, he the said. *380James Dalton at the time when he so shewed forth in-evidence the said last mentioned, false, forced and coun- . terfeiteu acquittance and receipt, well knowing the same acquittance and receipt, so by him shewed forth in evidence as aforesaid, to be false, forged and counterfeited, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.
The prisoner was found guilty, and the only question here was, as to the sufficiency of the indictment.
Sjsawjeii, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The term, book account, is unknown in the law, and in common parlance, it may mean money, goods, labour and whatever may be brought into account. The charge is therefore, too indefinite, cither to support the indictment upon the act of Assembly or at common law. Had the indictment charged the forging of an acquittance for goods, this would certainly have been proper evidence to be left to a jury. But as the indictment is substantially defective, there can be no judgment for the State, and it must therefore, stand arrested.