Crawford v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Citation19 S.W. 766
Decision Date11 June 1892
19 S.W. 766
Court of Appeals of Texas.
June 11, 1892.

Appeal from Hopkins county court.

Rufus Crawford, alias James Wells, was convicted of forging and uttering an order, and appeals. Reversed.

R. H. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.


Appellant was indicted for forgery and uttering the forged instrument, and, under the charge of the court, was found guilty of both offenses, and punished by two years in the penitentiary for forgery, and was further punished by two additional years in the penitentiary for uttering the forged instrument, and appeals to this court. The alleged forged document was as follows: "T. L. JUNELL, at Home. Mr. S. P. Mann, pay to James Wells $1 and a half, and I will pay you. I have got no change." The indictment charged that the defendant made this instrument on the 19th day of June, 1891, in Hopkins county, with intent to injure and defraud, and with the purpose of presenting it to S. P. Mann as the act of T. L. Junell, and representing that he was James Wells, the payee. The second count alleged that the defendant, on the 19th day of June, 1891, did knowingly and fraudulently pass as true to S. P. Mann the forged instrument above described, and represented that he was James Wells, the payee, and that the said instrument was the act of T. L. Junell, and it was made to enable the said James Wells to get $1.50 in said instrument mentioned. There are three questions in the case we desire to notice:

1. Defendant objected to the introduction of the instrument on the ground of variance. The original instrument is sent up in the record, but, on inspection, we cannot say the court erred in admitting it to the jury.

2. Defendant moved in arrest of judgment because the instrument alleged to have been forged is not such an instrument which, if true, would create pecuniary liability. It cannot be denied that if the name of the proposed drawer of the order, T. L. Junell, had been signed at the end instead of the beginning the instrument would have been a valid, legal order binding upon him, such as would sustain an indictment. Hendrick's Case, 26 Tex. App. 177, 9 S. W. Rep. 555, 557. Does the place where the signature of T. L. Junell appears, had he in truth given the order, make any difference, so far as his liability is concerned? The rule, as laid down by the authorities, is that if the maker intended to be bound by the order or written instrument it makes no difference where his name appears. This is settled by elementary writers, and is now the law of this state. In Fulshear v. Randon, 18 Tex. 277, it is held that, in order to bind a party to a written contract or agreement, it is not necessary that his signature should appear at the end of it. If he writes his name in any part of the agreement it may be taken as his signature, provided it is written for the purpose of giving authenticity to the instrument. Newton v. Emerson, 66 Tex. 145, 18 S. W. Rep. 348; 3 Pars. Cont. §§ 8, 344; 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. § 74. The instrument, then, if genuine,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • McIntire v. State, 1174-83
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 26 Junio 1985
    ...witness. See Drake, supra, citing Banks v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 246 S.W. 377 (1922) and Crawford v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 51, 19 S.W. 766 We conclude that the allegations of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and of indecency with a child arose in the same criminal transaction. The trial ......
  • Drake v. State, 148-84
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 27 Febrero 1985
    ...v. State, 596 S.W.2d 896, 902 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). And by quoting from the 1892 opinion of the Court in Crawford v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 51, 19 S.W. 766 (Ct.App.1892), Santoscoy suggests a revival of earlier common law pleading practice the Court had engrafted onto former article 433 and its s......
  • Hendrix v. State, 14-03-00950-CR.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 16 Noviembre 2004
    ...a man could be crushed by accumulating charges, or injured by their solemn presentation to the jury. Crawford v. State, 31 Tex.Crim. 51, 19 S.W. 766, 767 9. "The object in inserting various counts in an indictment is not to secure separate convictions for as many counts, but to meet the var......
  • Cochran v. State, 11602.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 30 Mayo 1930
    ...several names, and no allegation as to which of said names was forged. The indictment was upheld. In Crawford v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 19 S. W. 766, appears a case in which the instrument set out in the indictment contained the alleged forged name only at the beginning of the document s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT