Farr v. State

• Decision Date: 08 May 1911
• Citation: 137 S.W. 563,99 Ark. 134
• Parties: FARR v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

137 S.W. 563

99 Ark. 134

FARR v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 8, 1911

Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court; D. L. King, Special Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Allen H. Hamiter, for appellant.

Hal L Norwood, Attorney General, and William H. Rector, Assistant for appellee.

OPINION

HART, J.

The defendant, J. R. Farr, seeks by this appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction against himself for the crime of forgery.

1. He insists that the judgment should be reversed because the indictment is defective.

The defendant did not demur to it, or file a motion in arrest of judgment. Without passing upon the sufficiency of the indictment, it is only necessary to state that it is good in substance, and that judgment could have been rendered thereon against the defendant. Younger v. State, 37 Ark. 116 and cases cited.

2. The defendant next complains that the court withdrew instruction No. 3 given at his request, and gave in its place an additional instruction at the instance of the prosecuting attorney. It is not necessary to set out these instructions, for the objection of the defendant is disposed of by an examination of the record, which shows affirmatively that the court did not withdraw from the jury defendant's instruction No. 3, and did not give the additional instruction asked by the prosecuting attorney.

3. Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing instruction No. 4 asked by him; but the record also shows that the court did give an instruction identical with it. In other words, the record shows that the court did give instruction No. 4 as asked by the defendant, and then shows that an instruction in the same language was refused. The presumption, then, is that the instruction now complained of was refused because the same theory had already been presented to the jury in the instruction given. Hence it is not necessary to consider whether the instruction was correct, and it need not be set out herein.

4. It is also contended by defendant that the evidence does not support the verdict. The instrument in writing, which defendant is charged to have forged is as follows:

"Address, Stamps, Ark., No. 4161; Date, 6-2-09.

Received from J. R. Farr, ninety 60/100 dollars.

Amount $ 90.60

Disc. $

Total $ 90.60

The Beck & Corbett Iron Co.

St. Louis, Mo.

Per T. C. Cole, Salesman."

We authorize our salesmen to collect when issuing this numbered receipt.

The receipt was introduced in evidence by the State.

T. C Cole, a witness for the State, testified substantially as follows: That he lived at Russellville, Ark., and was traveling salesman for the Beck & Corbett Iron Company, dealers in heavy hardware in St. Louis, Mo. That on March 2, 1909, he sold to the defendant, who resided at Stamps, Lafayette County, Arkansas, a buggy for $ 90.60; that the sale was on a credit, and that defendant never paid him any amount on the purchase price of the buggy; that he also sold defendant a set of springs for $ 3.28, and that defendant paid him for them; that he gave defendant a receipt and kept a duplicate carbon copy; that the receipt was dated 4-2-09, and was for $ 3.28; that afterwards, defendant was sued for $ 90.60, the purchase price of the buggy, and as a defense to the suit introduced in evidence the receipt which is copied above. The witness testified that he never gave defendant the receipt, and the only receipt he ever gave him was for the $ 3.28 as above stated. That it was identical in form with the one in question except as to date and amount; that the original receipt has been...