Beal v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1903
• Citation: 35 So. 58,138 Ala. 94
• Parties: BEAL v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

35 So. 58

138 Ala. 94

BEAL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1903

Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thos. W. Coleman, Jr., Judge.

William Beal was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Reversed.

The appellant in this case was indicted under the name of William E. Beal for forgery in the execution of a mortgage. In the indictment, the document alleged to have been forged was set out in full. The name signed to the mortgage "F. A Beal" and the mortgagor describes himself in the mortgage as "F. A. Beal." The mortgage set out at length in the indictment purports to have been witnessed by Frank Leigh and Arthur Wellborn. The testimony for the state identified the defendant as the person who executed the mortgage alleged to have been forged to the City National Bank, and the evidence tended to show that the defendant signed the same as "F. A. Beal." The defendant, as a witness, in his own behalf, testified that he executed the mortgage set out in the indictment, and signed it as F. A Beal; that his name was "W. E. F. A. Beal," and that sometimes he used the first two initials in signing a paper and sometimes the last two, in signing a paper; that in the execution of the mortgage set out in the indictment, he signed his name as "F. A. Beal." The father of the defendant testified that his son's name was "W. E F. A. Beal." There were several witnesses introduced by the state who testified that they knew the defendant as "W. E." or "Willie" Beal, and that they had known him for a number of years, and that they had never heard of his being named "F. A. Beal." The other facts of the case necessary to an understanding of the decision on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Among the charges given by the court, at the request of defendant, was the following: "(1) The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the defendant at the time of the making of the mortgage owned the property set out in the indictment, and made the mortgage with no intent to injure or defraud, then you should find the defendant not guilty." Defendant requested the court to give the jury the following written charges and to the court's refusal to give each of them, as asked, duly excepted: "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if the defendant made the mortgage set out in the indictment without having at the time, the intention to injure or defraud, then you should find the defendant not guilty. (2) The court charges the jury that if the defendant owned all of the property set out in the indictment, at the time of making the mortgage, and that it was the defendant's intention at that time, that the property mentioned in the mortgage should be conveyed and held liable for the debt specified in the mortgage, then they should find the defendant not guilty."

T. C Sensabaugh, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON J.

1. The mortgage set out in the indictment purports to have been signed by F. A. Beal, and witnessed by Frank Leigh and Arthur Wellborn.

The bill of exceptions recites that "Frank Leigh, witness for the state, upon being handed the mortgage set out in the indictment, testified, that the signature, Frank Leigh signed to said mortgage was his signature." J. W. McElrath testified for the state, that he was present in the bank at the time said mortgage was given and saw defendant sign the same, and the witnesses thereto signed it as witnesses, while the defendant was present, and before the money was paid to him. M. B. Wellborn, the president of the bank, testified, that he was present at the time, as were defendant, Leigh, McElrath and Arthur Wellborn; that he knew the defendant, and he was the man who signed the mortgage to secure the indebtedness therein, and that when the mortgage became due, he tried to find F. A. Beal and the property mentioned in the mortgage but could find neither. On the cross, defendant's counsel asked witness, "Did you not, last fall, prosecute defendant by swearing out a warrant against him for selling mortgaged property,--the same property mentioned in your mortgage?" On objection made by the solicitor, the question was not allowed to be answered. In this there was error. If the witness had sued out the warrant inquired about, it might have implied bad feeling towards the defendant at that...