United States v. HardymanAnnotate this Case
38 U.S. 176
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Hardyman, 38 U.S. 13 Pet. 176 176 (1839)
United States v. Hardyman
38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 176
The defendant was indicted for receiving Treasury notes of the United States stolen from the United States mail. The indictment, in one of the counts, described one of the Treasury notes as bearing interest annually of one percentum. A Treasury note was offered in evidence bearing interest at one M. percentum, and parol evidence was offered to show that Treasury notes, such as the one offered in evidence, were received by the officers of the government as bearing interest of one mill percentum per annum, not one percentum per annum. The court held that
"Treasury notes issued by the authority of the Act of Congress passed on 12 October, 1838, are promissory notes within the meaning of the Act of Congress of 3 March, 1825."
The letter "M," which appears on the face of the note offered in evidence, is a material part of the description of the note.
It would be proper to receive parol evidence for the purpose of explaining the meaning of the letter "M" and proving the practice and usage of the Treasury Department and officers of the government and others, lawful receivers of similar Treasury notes, in order to show thereby the meaning intended to be attached, and actually attached, to the letter "M" by the Treasury Department and others, and that by such meaning the said Treasury note bears one mill percentum interest, and not one percentum interest.
When a note is given payable in foreign coin, the value of each coin in current money must be averred, and under such averment evidence of the value may be received.
James E. Hardyman was indicted in the Circuit Court of the Eastern District of Virginia for buying, receiving, and concealing Treasury notes of the United States knowing them to have been stolen. The Treasury notes were alleged to have been stolen from the mail of the United States by Winston, a negro man, or by persons unknown. Winston was at the same time indicted for robbing the mail of the United States of ten Treasury notes. The indictment contained four counts charging the defendant with receiving Treasury notes bearing interest at one percentum and at five percentum per annum.
The defendant moved the court to quash the indictment upon the ground that the papers described in the said indictment are not promissory notes under the act of Congress approved on 3 March, 1825, under which the prisoner is indicted; and the Act of Congress, approved 12 October, 1837, by virtue of which the said notes were issued, describes them as Treasury notes, and does not provide, nor does any other act of Congress provide any penalty for stealing these notes from the mail of the United States, or receiving them, knowing them to be stolen, and upon this motion, the court being divided in opinion, the said indictment was not quashed.
The Attorney for the United States, further proceeding in the case, offered as evidence to the jury a Treasury note for fifty dollars, payable in one year, bearing interest at the rate of one M. percentum.
The counsel for the accused moved the court to exclude it from
the jury as evidence upon the ground that it does not answer the description of any one of the notes set forth in the indictment, as it bears interest after the rate neither of five percentum nor of one percentum, but bears an interest after the rate of one mill percentum, as signified by the letter "M" after the word "one" upon the face of the said note, and to sustain this motion the defendant proved by the collector of the port of Richmond that he received notes such as that above described as notes bearing interest after the rate of one mill percentum, and not one percentum, and the government so received them from him, and the letter M aforesaid was understood to signify and be intended to mean "mill," and also proved that the Secretary of the Treasury had issued, as far as the said collector, and another witness who derived his impression from the Treasurer of the United States, and the officers of the government, knew and believed, no Treasury note bearing interest after the rate of one percentum. Upon this motion, the court was also divided in opinion, not being satisfied that the note did appear by its face to bear interest after the rate of one mill, and not being satisfied that it was competent to the defendant by parol evidence to explain any word or letter upon the face of the said note, so as to show what its meaning was, either by resort to any definition of it, or to the exposition of it by the practice of the Treasury Department, and the officers of the government and the public, and therefore that it was not competent to the defendant so to explain the letter "M" aforesaid, which appears on the face of the said note, and of which no notice is taken in the indictment, for the purposes of showing that by that letter the makers of the said note intended to fix the rate of interest at one mill percentum. And thereupon, upon the motion of the accused, and with the consent of the Attorney for the United States, the court adjourned to the Supreme Court of the United States for its decision, the following questions, viz.:
1. Are the Treasury notes issued by authority of the act of Congress passed on 12 October, 1838, "promissory notes" within the meaning of the Act of Congress approved 3 March, 1825, under which the prisoner is indicted, and is there a sufficient averment in the indictment in this cause of the stealing and receiving of such Treasury notes?
2. Is the letter "M," which appears upon the face of the note offered as evidence, a material part of the description of the note?
3. Would it be proper to receive parol evidence for the purpose of explaining the meaning of the said letter "M" and proving the practice and usage of the Treasury Department and officers of the government and others, lawful receivers of similar Treasury notes, in order to show thereby the meaning intended to be attached and actually attached to the said letter "M" by the Treasury Department and others, and that by such meaning the said Treasury note bears one mill percentum interest, and not one percentum interest?
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.