Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 23 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 69. |
| Citation | 18 So.2d 572,31 Ala.App. 455 |
| Parties | HALL et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 13, 1944.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; W. C. Warren Judge.
The instrument alleged to have been forged or uttered is as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prisoner sign Top Line Name Address
Approved this the ------ X (L.S.)
------------------------------
day of ------ 194" T. L. Goodman (L.S.) Northport, Ala.
------------------------------
P. M. Hinds (L.S.) Tuscaloosa, Ala.
------------------------ ------------------------------
Sheriff C. Z. Tierce (L.S.) Northport, Ala.
F. F. Windham, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Conviction was for forgery in the second degree. The indictments, in code form, charged the defendants with forgery of the appearance bond appearing in the report of the case and, in the alternative, with the uttering of said forged bond.
The bond, copied in haec verba in the indictments, was unsigned by the principal, Gast, and the first argument for error is that such an instrument, without the signature of the principal, Gast, was on its face a nullity, the forgery and passing of which constituted no crime. Demurrers asserting this were overruled by the trial court. Of course, had the forged bond been void or without legal efficacy on its face, the demurrers would have been well taken, but this is not the case here.
The bond, if forged, had sufficient legal efficacy to injure or defraud when approved and the defendant released thereon. Our statute sustains this position. "No bail are (is) discharged * * * because the defendant has not joined in the same * * * where the defendant is released from custody on approval of such undertaking of bail." Code 1940, Title 15, Sec. 208. In other words, the bail bond was as legally efficacious unsigned by the defendant as signed, when upon approval thereof he had been released on it.
But, without bringing into play the above statute, we think the result would be the same. It is only necessary that the forged instrument possess some apparent legal efficacy; that there is a reasonable possibility that it may operate to cause injury; and such an instrument may constitute a forgery, although if it were genuine other steps would have to be taken before it would be perfected. 23 Am.Jur., pp. 687, 688, Secs. 28, 29. This would be the status of the bond here without the operation of the quoted statute.
We must, and do, affirm the action of the trial court in overruling the demurrers.
It is also contended that a verdict should have been directed for defendants because of the uncontroverted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyatt v. State
...possess some apparent legal efficacy; that there is a reasonable possibility that it may operate to cause injury. Hall v. State, 31 Ala.App. 455, 18 So.2d 572. While hypertechnically the proper appellation of a county governing body is 'Court of County Commissioners' where a county is opera......
-
Earnest v. State
...of the forgery statutes. Gooch v. State, 249 Ala. 477, 31 So.2d 776, 174 A.L.R. 1297 (check written on Sunday); Hall v. State, 31 Ala.App. 455, 18 So.2d 572 (bogus bail bond not signed by The instant policy had all the appearances of a binding contract. However, such a contract is personal ......
-
State v. Brown
...injury, rather than its technical legal effect, include the following: Earnest v. State, 40 Ala.App. 344, 113 So.2d 517; Hall v. State, 31 Ala.App. 455, 18 So.2d 572; People v. Morgan, 140 Cal.App.2d 796, 296 P.2d 75; People v. Baker, 100 Cal. 188, 34 P. 649; Allgood v. State, 87 Ga. 668, 1......
-
Huddleston v. State
...a conviction for forgery it is not necessary to prove that damage or injury actually resulted. Hobbs v. State, 75 Ala. 1; Hall v. State, 31 Ala.App. 455, 18 So.2d 572; certiorari denied 245 Ala. 671, 18 So.2d 574; Warren v. State, 32 Ala.App. 302, 25 So.2d 695; certiorari denied 247 Ala. 59......