The defendant was convicted upon an indictment founded on St. 1804, c. 120, § 2, for possessing at one time a number not less than ten, of similar counterfeit bank-bills, with intent to pass them. The evidence at the trial was, that the bank bills were of different dates, and Beal, in behalf of the defendant, objected that they were therefore not similar, but on the authority of Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Mass. R. 69, the Court overruled the objection.1