Card v. The State
Decision Date | 23 December 1886 |
Docket Number | 13,405 |
Citation | 9 N.E. 591,109 Ind. 415 |
Parties | Card v. The State |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for a Rehearing Overruled Feb. 23, 1887.
From the Kosciusko Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
E Haymond and L. W. Royse, for appellant.
L. T Michener, Attorney General, and W. B. Hord, for the State.
In this case the indictment charged that appellant and Theodore W. Strain, "on the 9th day of September, 1885, at the county of Kosciusko, in the State of Indiana, did then and there feloniously, falsely and fraudulently make, forge and counterfeit a certain promissory note, purporting to have been made and executed by one John F. Fisher, for the payment of money to one John Hall, which said false, forged and counterfeit promissory note is of the following tenor, to wit:" (Setting out a copy of such note), "with intent then and there and thereby, feloniously, falsely and fraudulently to prejudice, damage and defraud the said John F. Fisher."
Appellant was awarded a separate trial; and upon his arraignment and plea of not guilty, as charged in the indictment, the issues joined were tried by a jury, and a verdict was returned finding him guilty, as charged, and assessing his punishment at imprisonment in the State's prison for ten years, and a fine in the sum of ten dollars. Over his motion for a new trial, the court rendered judgment against him upon and in accordance with the verdict.
The only error of which appellant's counsel complain in their brief of this cause, is the alleged error of the court below in overruling the motion for a new trial. In discussing this error counsel say: We will consider so many of these causes for a new trial as appellant's counsel have discussed, in the order they have pursued in argument. They first direct our attention to the fifth reason assigned for a new trial, as follows: "The court erred in permitting the State, over the objections of defendant, to put in evidence a letter from Woodson S. Marshall to W. W. Mikels, dated January 21st, 1886." The letter referred to, in this cause for a new trial, reads as follows:
It is shown by the record, that appellant objected to the admission of this letter in evidence, "for the reason that the evidence is irrelevant and immaterial, and does not tend to prove any of the allegations in the indictment, and that it is a written declaration made by Woodson S. Marshall, in the absence of defendant and without his knowledge or consent, and was hearsay." The court overruled these objections and admitted the letter in evidence, and appellant excepted.
The letter of Marshall was manifestly admitted in evidence by the trial court, upon the ground that it had been shown to the satisfaction of the court, by other evidence appearing in the record, that a criminal conspiracy had been entered into, by and between appellant and his co-defendant, Strain, and Marshall, the object and purpose of which conspiracy were the forgery of promissory notes, in the names of certain responsible persons, and the sale and utterance of such forged and counterfeit notes. There was evidence introduced which tended to prove the formation and existence of such a conspiracy by and between the parties named, for the purposes mentioned, and the parts which each of the conspirators was to perform in the accomplishment or furtherance of the criminal design; and that in pursuance of such conspiracy, and while attempting to perform the part assigned him therein, by selling and uttering certain of the counterfeit promissory notes forged by such conspirators, Marshall made certain verbal and written declarations, and, amongst others, the one referred to in the fifth cause for a new trial and heretofore quoted, of and concerning such notes and his efforts to sell and utter the same, and about John Hall, the payee named therein. It is manifest that the trial court regarded such evidence as sufficient to establish prima facie the fact of such a conspiracy, by and between appellant, Strain and Marshall, for the object and purpose aforesaid. We can not say that the trial court erred in its view of the effect of such evidence; for this question is one peculiarly for the consideration and decision of the learned court presiding at the trial.
Upon this subject, Mr. Greenleaf has said: 1 Greenl. Ev., section 111. The doctrine here declared has been approved and acted upon in many of our decided cases. Williams v. State, 47 Ind. 568; Jones v. State, 64 Ind. 473; Walton v. State, 88 Ind. 9; Archer v. State, 106 Ind. 426, 7 N.E. 225.
But appellant's counsel say: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial