Hickman v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 1903 |
| Citation | 72 S.W. 587 |
| Parties | HICKMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Wichita county; A. H. Carrigan, Judge.
J. H. Hickman was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Reversed.
G. F. Thomas, J. W. Chancellor, and John Speer, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charges that appellant, on the 2d day of July, 1902, forged the following instrument:
The indictment contains neither explanatory averments nor innuendo allegations. Motion to quash was based, first, upon the ground that the instrument itself shows that the offense was barred by the statute of limitations when presented by the grand jury; second, that it was repugnant in its averments, in that the forgery was alleged to have been committed on the 2d day of July, 1902, whereas the instrument showed on its face to have been committed on July 2, 1892. We believe both points are well taken. The instrument purports to have been executed on July 2, 1892. The indictment was preferred by the grand jury on October 29, 1902, something over 10 years after the purported execution. Prosecution for forgery is barred under our statute in 10 years. The other proposition—that is, that the allegations are repugnant—we think is manifest. While the instrument bears date July 2, 1892, it may have been executed on July 2, 1902, as a matter of fact. This is not explained in the indictment, but the two allegations are left standing, one alleging the execution on July 2, 1902, and the instrument itself showing that it was executed on July 2, 1892. Without some explanatory averments, these matters are totally irreconcilable.
Believing the motion to quash should have been sustained, and the indictment is vicious, the judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odle v. State, 20955.
...Tex.Cr.R. 105, 48 S.W. 523; Munoz v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 457, 50 S. W. 949; Edgerton v. State [Tex.Cr.App.] 70 S.W. 90; Hickman v. State, 44 Tex. Cr.R. 533, 72 S.W. 587; Davis v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 108, 131 S.W. 315; Hubbert v. State 147 S. W. Probably the most difficult question raised in......
-
Donald v. State
...Presiding Judge. Upon further study, we find that the question here presented is not one of first impression. In Hickman v. State, 44 Tex.Cr.R. 533, 72 S.W. 587, Presiding Judge Davidson, speaking for the Court in 1903, in reversing the conviction, 'The indictment charges that appellant, on......
-
Richards v. State
...repugnancy." The text is supported by many authorities; among them being Edgerton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 70 S. W. 90; Hickman v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 533, 72 S. W. 587. In his charge, the court gave the definition of forgery found in article 979, P. C. Following this definition, all the ......
-
Owen v. State, 12632.
...a proposition which asserts that a deed specifically alleged to be forged is presumed by law to be correct. The case of Hickman v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 533, 72 S. W. 587, is cited by appellant in support of his contention. This was a prosecution under article 979, which charged the forgery......