Case Name: The State v. Beeler
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1805-04
Citations: 1 Brev. 482
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Beeler.
Judges: (Grimee, Waties, Bay, and Brevard, Justices.)
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 482–484

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
COLUMBIA,
APRIL. 1805.
The State v. Beeler.
The staking counterfeit coin at a gaming table, as good money, is an attempt to utter or pass the same ; and losing it at play, is a passing of the same against law.
The indictment for this offence, though it may state the ingredients of which such coin is composed, need not be proved in this particular.
Motion for a new trial. The defendant was indicted before Wilds, J,, in Edgefield district, for making and passing counterfeit Money. The indictment contained two counts. The first charged the prisoner with the counterfeiting, and the other with the passing, or attempting to pass, two false and counterfeit pieces of coin, in the similitude of Spanish milled dollars, composed of lead, pewter, tin, and other mixed metals. There was no evidence given to prove the prisoner guilty of‘ the forging, or making ol the pieces of coin in question ; nor was there any evidence to prove, what the different ingredients were, which entered into the composition of the said pieces : But, it was proved, thal the pieces were not true and genuine, but false and base. And it appeared in evidence, that the prisoner passed the two pieces aforesaid, at a gaming table, by betting on the hand of a certain person who was gaming, and lost the same by so betting, to the person to whom the pieces were passed. Wilds, J. charged against the prisoner on the second count, and recommended an acquittal on the first. He overruled the objections which were made at the trial.
It was insisted for the prisoner, 1st. That losing base money by-gaming, ought not to be considered such a passing, or uttering; as to subject a party to the penalty of a law, so severe as this, under •which the prisoner was indicted. 2d. That the indictment was not proved ; since there was .no evideuce given to prove the composition of the counterfeit pieces so passed, to be of the metals charged in the indictment. 3d. That the jury having found a general verdict on both counts, it ought to be set aside, as it clearly appeared that there was no evidence to support one of the counts, and the court could not tell on which count the juiy have found.
Gaixtt and Lesley, for the pnsouer,
cited 1 Bl. Com. 61, 88, 2 East’s P. C. 975.
Stake, for the State,
was stopped by the court.

Opinion:
By the court.
(Grimee, Waties, Bay, and Brevard, Justices.)
The stakiug false money at gaming, is attempting to pass it, and losing it at gaming,isa passing, within the meaning of the act; and, therefore, the objection as to the passing, was properly overruled at the trial: or rather, the judge properly directed the jury on this point. The objection to the want of proof to support the indictment, because the pieces were not proved to be composed of the metals specified in the indictment, was also properly overruled. As to the verdict being general on both counts, when one only was psoved, it is immaterial, as there is one good count to support the verdict. See Doug. 722. The consequence the same, being found guilty on both, as if found guilty on one count only.
Motion refused.
Mote. The A A. 1783, P. L. 314, fixes the standard of weight and value ic the severa] denominations of current coin, and enacts, that " Any person who shall counterfeit, or utter, or attempt to pass, kuowing them to be counterfeit, any 0f the aforesaid, gold o» silver coins; or shall make, or keep, in his or her possessi°n. any stamp, die, or mould, for coining the same, upon being duly convicted thereof, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall suffer death as a felon, without clergy."
A mistake in not laying an offence on the very same day on which it was after-wards proved upon the trial, is not material 2 Haw. 386, 337. 6 Edw. 335, 435. A mistake of the place, not material, on not guilty pleaded, if the fact be proved at some other place in the same county. 2 Haw. 237. 6 Edw. 337. íáalk. 288. An indictment charging a man disjunctively is void; as murdered, or caused to be murdered. Ib. 321, 227. 1 Bur. 400. See 2 Leach's Cases. 816. Indictment for burglary; proved prisonerstole the goods without breaking open the house Indictment sustained, as to the larceny. See 1 Hal. P. C. 599, acquitted of burglary. Heyw. 12. Where several overt acts are laid in an indictment of high treason, the proof of any of them maintains the judgment, as much as if every of them were proved. 2 Haw. 436. in murder, may be found guilty of manslaughter bo, if indicted for stealing above 12d., may be convicted of petit larceny. 2 Haw. 44. If the substance of the matter be proved, sufficient. Ib. 437. If a general verdict be given on several counts, and one bad, it vitiates m civil cases. See Cow 276. See !.)oug 722. Not in criminal. And. not in civil cases, unless evidence was given to support the bad count. Doug. "76. See 1 vol. Nelson v. Emerson. Vide 1 Salk. 384. 3 Sup. Vin. 80.