Benson v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 1899 |
| Citation | 122 Ala. 100,26 So. 119 |
| Parties | BENSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery: A. D. Sayre, Judge.
George Benson was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant, George Benson, was indicted, tried, and convicted under the following indictment: The defendant moved the court to strike the last clause of the indictment reading, "And the grand jury aver that by the words 'Griell Bros. Co.' the said George Benson meant and intended Griel Brothers Company," on the ground that said allegation was immaterial and frivolous, and that no material issue in law or in fact could be taken thereon. This motion was overruled. On the trial of the case the defendant introduced the manager of Greil Bros. Company, who testified that Greil Bros Company was a corporation doing business in the city of Montgomery; and on being shown the alleged forged instrument the witness testified that he did not sign the name of "Greil Bros. Co." to said instrument, or authorize any one to sign it; and that it was not signed by any person connected with said corporation, or by any person authorized to sign the same. It was then shown that the defendant delivered the forged instrument in payment of four quart bottles of beer, which one of the witnesses for the state testified defendant had purchased, and that the person to whom the check was delivered gave it to another person to have it collected. After identifying it as the alleged forged instrument, the said witness introduced in evidence the following check: Upon the introduction of this check in evidence, the defendant objected upon the ground, as stated in the bill of exceptions, that there was a variance between it and "the instrument described in the indictment, in this that this check is for five and 70/100 dollars, and the one described in the indictment is for five and 75/100 dollars." The bill of exceptions then recites: "The court, after inspecting the check, held that there was no variance, and overruled the objection, and allowed the check to be introduced, to which action of the court the defendant then and there duly and legally excepted." The time and venue were proved as laid in the indictment. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General
...of forgery is an intent to injure or defraud when the act complained of is done (Agee v. State, 113 Ala. 52, 21 So. 207; Denson v. State, 122 Ala. 100, 26 So. 119), and is not necessary that any actual injury should result from the offense (Denson v. State, supra); and (3) it is of "no cons......
- Gooch v. State
-
Wyatt v. State
...is the material question. If the writing has that capacity, the offense is committed.' Jones v. State, 50 Ala. 161, 163; Denson v. State, 122 Ala. 100, 26 So. 119; 37 C.J.S., Forgery, § 3, p. Thus the unqualified endorsement on the warrant made it capable of being transferred to one on the ......
-
Martin v. State
...of forgery is an intent to injure or defraud when the act complained of is done (Agee v. State, 113 Ala. 52, 21 So. 207; Denson v. State, 122 Ala. 100, 26 So. 119), and it is not necessary that any actual injury should result from the offense (Denson v. State, supra ); and (3) it is of 'no ......