Alexander v. State

• Citation: 12 S.W. 595
• Parties: ALEXANDER <I>v.</I> STATE.
• Decision Date: 09 November 1889
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

12 S.W. 595

ALEXANDER

v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

November 9, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Rusk county; J. H. WOOD, Special Judge.

T. S. Alexander was convicted of forgery, and appeals. The indictment was brought under Pen. Code Tex. art. 431, which provides that "he is guilty of forgery who, without lawful authority, and with intent to injure or defraud, shall make a false instrument in writing, purporting to be the act of another, in such manner that the false instrument, so made, would (if the same were true) have created, increased, diminished, discharged, or defeated any pecuniary obligation, or would have transferred, or in any manner have affected, any property whatever." Article 438 of the same Code provides that "by an instrument which would `have transferred, or in any manner have affected,' property, is meant every species of conveyance or undertaking in writing which supposes a right in the person purporting to execute it to dispose of, or change the character of, property of every kind, and which can have such effect when genuine." The indictment set out the instrument as follows: "Mrs. A. C. Neal: Please send my diploma to me by this young man, (meaning T. S. Alexander.) [Signed] W. W. WOLFE."

Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.

WILLSON, J.

It is charged in the indictment that the defendant, without lawful authority, and with intent to injure and defraud, made a false instrument in writing, purporting to be the act of W. W. Wolfe. Said instrument in writing is set out in the indictment, and is as follows: "Mrs. A. C. Neal: Please send my diploma to me by this young man. W. W. WOLFE." The diploma referred to in said instrument was issued to said W. W. Wolfe by the board of directors of the Prairie View State Normal Institute, on May 31, 1887, and certified that said Wolfe had completed the prescribed course in that institute, etc. It was proved on the trial that Mrs. A. C. Neal had the lawful possession of said diploma; that the same belonged to said Wolfe, and was of the value of three dollars; that the defendant, by mean of said forged instrument in writing, obtained possession of said diploma from said Mrs. Neal. It is contended by counsel for defendant that the indictment does not allege an offense against the law, and that the facts proved do not show an offense against the law, because the instrument in writing alleged to have been forged is not such an instrument as is embraced within the meaning of our Code defining forgery.

We agree with counsel for defendant that said instrument in writing does not come within the meaning of "pecuniary obligations." It is not an instrument having money for its object, nor is it an obligation for the breach of which a civil action for damages might be lawfully brought. Pen. Code, art. 437. But is not the instrument in question such that, if it had been genuine, it would have transferred, or in some manner have affected, property? If so, it is within the meaning of forgery. Id. art. 431. By such an instrument "is meant every species of conveyance or undertaking in...