Case ID: mass_47/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Shaw, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth vs. Ezekiel S. Kent.
    Jnder the Rev. Sts. e. 127, $ 18; providing for the punishment of a person who shall knowingly have in his possession any instrument, adapted and designed for coining or making counterfeit coin, with intent to use the same, or cause or permit the same to be used, in coining or making such coin, a person is punishable for so having in hia possession, with such intent, an instrument adapted and designed to make one side only of a counterfeit coin.
    On the trial of a party who is indicted for knowingly having in his possession an instrument adapted and designed for coining or making counterfeit coin, with intent to use it, or cause or permit it to be used, in coining or making such coin, he cannot give m evidence his declarations to an artificer, at the time he employed him to make such instrument, as to the purposes for which he wished it to be made.
    The defendant was tried in the municipal court, at Decern ber term, 1842, on an indictment, which alleged that he, at Boston, “on the 1st of October 1842, did knowingly have in his possession a certain mould, pattern, die, puncheon, tool and instrument, adapted and designed for coining and making one side of a counterfeit coin in the similitude of one side or half part of a certain silver coin, called a half dollar, to wit, that side or half par' thereof which represents a spread eagle, and has the words ‘ United States of America,’ ‘ half dollar; ’ said coin, called a half dollar, being current by law and usage in this State and Commonwealth aforesaid, with intent to use and em ploy the same mould, pattern, die, puncheon, tool and instrument, and cause and permit the same to be used and employed, in coining and making such false and counterfeit coin as aforesaid,” &c.
    At the trial, it was proved that the prisoner had about his person, at the time of his arrest, a-solid piece of steel, representing, in its shape, the section of the base of a cone, upon the smaller end of which was an engraving, such as would stamp the impression of the eagle side of the U. States coin, called a half dollar. Also it was proved that there was found in his closet, at Roxbury, in the county of Norfolk, a certain other piece of steel, exactly similar in shape to that above described, but entirely smooth; and another piece of steel, upon which were turned four instruments, which are commonly called punches.
    The defence, among other things set up by the prisoner, was, that he intended to use the above described instruments in making tin pill and salve boxes ; and he introduced the person, who turned the said instruments, as a witness, by whom he proposed to show his (the prisoner’s), declarations, made at the time of, and in connection with, the making of the contract for the turning of said instruments, as to the purpose for which the prisoner wanted them. This testimony was ruled out by the court, but the witness was permitted to state what instructions were given to him, by the prisoner, at the time, relative to the turning of the instruments, and the manner in which they should be made.
    The prisoner’s counsel asked the court to instruct the jury, that the fact that the prisoner had in his possession the engraved instrument above described, it being adapted and designed only to stamp the impression of one side of a U. States half dollar, was not the possession of such a tool or instrument as would render the prisoner liable under the Rev. Sts. c. 127, <§> 18, whatever might be his intent; and that the. indictment did not set forth any offence under said statute, as against the prisoner. But the court instructed the jury, that although, with the instrument found in the prisoner’s possession, he could make no more than half of the impression of a U. States half dollar, yet if the jury believed, from the evidence, that he intended it should be used in counterfeiting half dollars of the U. States com, he was within the statute, and that they ought to find him guilty.
    The jxiry found the defendant guilty, and he thereupon alleged exceptions to the ruling and instructions of the court.
    
      Bancroft, for the defendant.
    
      Austin, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   Shaw, C. J.

The court are of opinion that the ruling and instructions of the municipal court were right.

The statute on which the indictment was founded, Rev. Sts. c. 127, § 18, is extremely comprehensive. The object and policy of the statute, we think, are obvious. It is manifestly so difficult to prove the fact of actually making counterfeit coin, that the statute intended to make the possession of instruments adapted to counterfeiting, with the criminal intent to use them, or cause or permit them to be used, for that purpose, a crime subject to severe punishment. But the gist of the offence is the criminal intent, and therefore the fact of the possession of such an instrument being proved, the intent was rightly left to the jury.

But the same objection, substantially, is taken on a motion in arrest of judgment, and it is this; that the indictment sets forth, and the evidence proves, the defendant had in his possession a die, or instrument, adapted to make one side of a counterfeit half dollar, and not an entire half dollar; and therefore, though he so had it, with intent to use it, or cause it to be used, in counterfeiting, it is not an offence within the statute.

It appears to us, that this is founded upon a very imperfect and unsound view of the statute. This statute provides that l£ every person, who shall knowingly have in his possession any mould, pattern, die, puncheon, engine, press, or other tool or instrument, adapted and designed for coining or making any counterfeit coin, in the similitude of any gold or silver coin, current by law or usage in this State, with intent to use or employ the same, or to cause or permit the same to be used, in coining or making any such false and counterfeit coin, as aforesaid, shall be punished,” &c.

An instrument may be very well adapted and designed for coining, although not capable, of itself, of making both sides and every part of any one coin. Indeed it would be difficult to conceive of any instrument so capable “ Adapted for coin ing” is matter of description, and applies to any instrument which may be used in the formation of any part of a coin; and the question of intent is always a fact to be proved; so that a person, possessing such instrument for any innocent purpose, would be in no danger of conviction. Any other construction would defeat the obvious purposes of the statute. A company of counterfeiters might be associated, one having instruments in his possession, in Roxbury, to cut the smooth round blanks; a second in Boston, to stamp one side ; a third in Charlestown, to stamp the other side, and complete the counterfeit; each with the guilty intent so to use and employ the instruments in his possession, but in different towns and 'counties. According to the construction of the statute, relied upon by the defendant, neither of them could be convicted. But the statute, we think, is not chargeable with this imbecility. It was intended to declare the possession of any instrument, fitted and adapted for counterfeiting, a crime, if intended to be used for that criminal purpose.

The specific ground of exception to the indictment is, that it charges the possession of a die, adapted and designed to im press one side of an American half dollar. This is a very goou description of an instrument adapted and designed for coining. The indictment then goes further, and charges that the defendant had this mould and pattern in his possession, with intent to use and employ the same, and cause the same to be used and employed, in making such counterfeit coin ; that is, entire counterfeit half dollars. This is the precise statute offence, and we think it is well stated and charged in the indictment. The motion in arrest of judgment, therefore, as well as the exceptions, must be overruled.