State v. Burd

• Citation: 115 Mo. 405,22 S.W. 377
• Parties: STATE v. BURD.
• Decision Date: 02 May 1893
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

22 S.W. 377

115 Mo. 405

STATE v. BURD.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 2, 1893.

FORGERY — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

A check for 60 cents was transferred to defendant. When he presented it to the bank it called for $60.60. Upon the refusal of the bank to pay it, he asked to have it returned, but the bank held it, and it was subsequently repudiated by the maker. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the check was raised in defendant's handwriting; but he could give only an unsatisfactory account of his fleeing to another state; and, when arrested, he said that, "before he would suffer, he would give the whole thing away." Held, that the evidence warranted a verdict finding him guilty of forgery.

Appeal from circuit court, Dallas county; W. I. Wallace, Judge.

Jeff. Burd was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Upton & Miller, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

GANTT, P. J.

The defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Dallas county, and convicted of forgery. On the 25th day of December, 1890, T. S. Tinsley drew his check on the Dallas County Bank, a banking company incorporated under the laws of this state, in favor of J. W. Frost, for 60 cents, in words and figures as follows: "Buffalo, Mo., Dec. 25th, 1890. Dallas County Bank. Pay to J. W. Frost, or bearer, 60/100 ____ /100 dollars. $ .60/100. Thaddeus S. Tinsley." I. C. Ball was the proprietor of a store in Long Lane, a village in Dallas county, and the defendant, Jeff. Burd, was his clerk. J. W. Frost purchased a hat of defendant, in Ball's store, and gave this check in part payment for that and some other article of merchandise, during Christmas week. A day or two after Frost bought the hat, G. B. Franklin saw this check in the possession of defendant, and it still called for only 60 cents. On January 1, 1891, the defendant in person presented this check to the cashier of the bank. At that time it purported to call for $60.60. Mr. Tinsley having remarked to the cashier that he had sent Frost a check for 60 cents, as soon as he saw it he noticed that it was for $60.60, and, examining it closely, declined to honor it, but retained it until he could show it to Mr. Tinsley, the drawer. Upon payment being refused, defendant wanted to know if there was anything wrong with the check. He said he was working at Ball's store, and "he had traded Mr. Frost a hat for the check," and "he wanted to know what the check called for." When told it was for $60.60, he remarked, "if there was anything wrong in that check, he was responsible for it, as he had it in his possession, and, from the time he got it, it had been in his pocket all the time." He asked to have the check returned to him, which the cashier declined to do. On the Sunday following the presentation of the check at the bank, Frost, Ball, and defendant met in the public road, when Ball, in the presence and hearing of defendant, addressing Frost, said: "What did that check call for that you let Burd have." Frost answered: "60 cents." Ball replied: "There was something wrong at the bank. They won't pay it. The check was all right when it left me." Defendant sat upon his horse, and did not say a word, except, when Frost asked for some paper on which to write a note, defendant said: "Here, I have some." As soon as Tinsley saw the check, he repudiated it as a forgery as to the "sixty dollars" inserted in it. Defendant was subsequently indicted, and recognized to appear at the October term, 1891. He appeared at the court on the first and second days of the term, but fled on the third day. He was afterwards...