Buren v. State
| Decision Date | 31 December 1885 |
| Citation | 84 Tenn. 61 |
| Parties | N. B. Buren v. The State. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM RUTHERFORD.
Appeal in error from the Criminal Court of Rutherford County. MATT. W. ALLEN, J.
J. M. QUARLES for Buren.
Attorney-General LEA for the State.
Buren was convicted in the criminal court of Rutherford county, upon an indictment containing two counts, one for forgery, and one for obtaining goods upon false pretenses. The verdict was general, and the defendant, having moved for a new trial, which was refused, has appealed in error to this court.
The court charged the jury, that while the court for forgery charged that offense alone upon its face, yet it included the charge of another felony, to wit, the fraudulent passing or transferring, and offering to pass or transfer any forged paper, knowing it to be forged, with intent to defraud another.
Forgery is defined to be the fraudulent making or alteration of any writing to the prejudice of another's rights: New Code, sec. 5492.
The next section makes the knowingly passing or transfer of forged paper with intent to defraud, a felony: Sec. 5493.
This latter felony is not included in the charge of forgery. The one is complete by the fraudulent making or alteration of the paper with intent to defraud. The forgery may be done by one person, and the uttering or passing by another. They are distinct, substantive offenses, like stealing and receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, and must be averred in distinct counts, when united in the same indictment.
The charge of the court was misleading and erroneous, in that it instructed the jury that they might find defendant guilty of passing, under the count for forging, there being no count charging passing, or offering to pass, the forged paper.
The judgment must be reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State
...forgery and uttering a forged instrument are separate and distinct offenses, and that neither is included within the other. Buren v. State, 84 Tenn. 61 (1885); Baldwin v. State, 213 Tenn. 49, 372 S.W.2d 188 (1963). Forgery is the fraudulent making or alteration of any writing to the prejudi......
-
Baldwin v. State
...to pass forged papers or forgery. These are distinct crimes and one does not contain the other as a lesser included offense. Buren v. State, 84 Tenn. 61 (1885); Luttrell v. State, 85 Tenn. 232, 1 S.W. 886 Where two or more offenses are charged in the same indictment, the verdict must be wor......
-
Note Holders of the Bank of Tenn. v. Funding Bd.
... ... and cashier, and duly issued in the regular course of business, and for a purpose not shown to be unlawful, were binding upon the bank and the State. Shortly afterward, the Legislature, by the act of 1885, chapter 83, made provision for the redemption and funding of these notes by appointing a ... ...