In criminal cases, when the offence is a cumulative one, consisting itself in the commission of a number of acts, evidence of those acts is not only admissible, but essential to support the charge. On an in- dictment against a defendant for a conspir- acy to cause himself to be believed a man of large property, for the purpose of de- frauding tradesmen after proof of a repre- sentation to one tradesman, evidence may thereupon be given of a representation to another tradesman at a different time; 1 Campb. 399; 2 Day 205; 1 Johns. 99. To prove the guilty knowledge of a pris- oner with regard to the transaction in ques- tion, evidence of other offences of the same kind committed by the prisoner, though not charged in the indictment, is admis- sible against him; as, in the case where a prisoner had passed a counterfeit dollar, evi- dence that he had other counterfeit dollars in his possession is evidence to prove the guilty knowledge; 2 Const. 758, 776; 1 Bail. 300; 2 Leigh 745; 1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 415; Russ. & R. 132; 5 Rand. 701. The substance of the issue joined between the parties must be proved; 1 Phill. Ev. 100; Tayl. Ev. 233. Under this rule will be considered the quantity of evidence required to support particular averments in the dec- laration or indictment. And, first, of civil cases. 1. It is a fatal variance in a contract if it appear that a party who ought to have been joined as plaintiff has been omitted; 1 Saund. 291 h, n.; 2 Term 282; and so where a bill for specific performance alleges the execution of a contract in a certain year, and the proof shows that it was made in another; 85 Ala. 286. But it is no variance to omit a person who might have been joined as defendant; because the non-joinder ought to have been pleaded in abatement; 1 Saund. 291 d, n. 2. The consideration of the con- tract must be proved; but it is not neces- sary for the plaintiff to set out in his dec- laration, or prove on the trial, the several parts of a contract consisting of distinct and collateral provisions: it is sufficient to state so much of the contract as contains the entire consideration of the act, and the entire act to be done in virtue of such con- sideration, including the time, manner, and other circumstances of its performance; 6 East 568: 4 B. & Ald. 387. Second. In criminal cases, it may be laid down that it is, in general, sufficient to prove what constitutes the offence. 1. It is enough to prove so much of the indictment as shows that the defendant has committed a substantive crime therein specified: 2 Campb. 585: 1 H. & J. 427. See 78 Ga. 98: 62 Mich. 297. If a man be indicted for robbery, he may be found guilty of larceny and not guilty of the robbery; 2 Hale. PÍ.