Dunson v. State, 39609
| Decision Date | 21 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 39609,39609 |
| Citation | 78 So.2d 580,223 Miss. 551 |
| Parties | Steve DUNSON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Fred Witty, Greenwood, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., by Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal by Steve Dunson from a conviction of forgery and a sentence of seven years in the state penitentiary.
The indictment was drawn under Section 2173, Code of 1942, the applicable part of which is: 'Every person who, with the intent to injure or defraud, shall falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit any instrument or writing * * * being or purporting to be the act of another, by which any pecuniary demand or obligation shall be or purport to be created, increased, discharged, or diminished, or by which any right or property whatever shall be or purport to be transferred, conveyed, discharged, diminished, or in any manner affected, by which false making, forging, altering or counterfeiting any person may be affected, bound, or in any way injured in his person or property, shall be guilty of forgery.'
Omitting the legal phraseology, the indictment, in effect, charged that Steve Dunson was the truck driver of Greenwood Grocery Company and delivered by truck the merchandise from the company's warehouse to its customers; that when the main warehouse did not have the desired merchandise, an agent of the company would give to the truck driver a written order to be taken by him to another warehouse to be there filled and to be delivered by the truck driver to the customer; that Steve Dunson well knew this usage and custom; that on January 14, 1953, the agent of the company at the main warehouse gave to Steve Dunson for presentation to an authorized agent at another warehouse of the company a written order as follows: 'Wing Lee 4 sx 100# Rye 1-14-53'; that the written order, when Steve Dunson presented it to the other warehouse, had been altered so as to read: 'Wing Lee 8 sx 100# Rye 1-14-53'; that Steve Dunson knew that it had been altered; and that he uttered and put it off as true to an authorized agent of the company at the warehouse to which it had been directed, with intent to cheat, injure and defraud, etc.
In other words the indictment alleged extrinsic facts to show that the alteration of the writing increased the demand thereof from four to eight sacks of rye. It was pointed out in Cohran v. State, Miss., 70 So.2d 46, in a construction of Section 2172, Code of 1942...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Telephone Man, Inc. v. Hinds County, No. 1999-CA-01660-SCT.
...associate on settlement documents to disguise his ruse. It is uncontested that Harrell is guilty of forgery. See Dunson v. State, 223 Miss. 551, 553, 78 So.2d 580, 581 (1955) (recognizing that the essential elements of forgery are (1) drafting a false instrument, (2) fraudulent intent, and ......
-
Rowland v. State
...may be committed, the writing alleged to have been forged must be one which, if genuine, might injure another." Also, Dunson v. State, 223 Miss. 551, 78 So.2d 580 (1955); Laird v. State, 406 So.2d 35 Clearly the elements of forgery are present in this case. The instrument and seal affixed t......
-
Jefferson v. Cmty. Bank (In re Jefferson), CASE NO. 11-51958-KMS
...of instrument to effect fraud." Telephone Man, Inc. v. Hinds County, 791 So. 2d 208, 210 (Miss. 2001) (citing Dunson v. State, 78 So. 2d 580, 581 (Miss. 1955)). Forgery is a question of fact and "must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." King v. King, 760 So. 2d 830, 833 (Miss. Ct. ......
-
Harper v. State, 52354
...therefore, that if the instrument in question could not create a liability, it could not be the basis for a forgery. Dunson v. State, 223 Miss. 551, 78 So.2d 580, 581 (1955). Thus presented here is the question: could the check in question create a liability and have worked a fraud? The ans......