Horton v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1869 |
| Citation | 32 Tex. 79 |
| Parties | D. L. HORTON v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
1. See this case for an indictment held sufficient in a prosecution for the forgery of a note payable in trade.
2. It is not necessary that the indictment should contain averments showing how the false instrument would, if true, create, increase, diminish, discharge, or defeat any pecuniary obligation; or would transfer or affect any property whatever. These are deductions of law, not necessary to be averred.
3. The fact that no internal revenue stamp was affixed to the instrument alleged to be forged, is immaterial. The crime is not incomplete because no stamp has been affixed.
4. See this case for evidence held to be inconclusive of the guilt of the accused.
APPEAL from Wood. Tried below before the Hon. Winston Banks.
The indictment charged that on the 23d of June, 1868, “in the county of Wood, in the state of Texas, with force and arms, one D. L. Horton, late of said county, without lawful authority, and with intent to defraud, willfully, feloniously, and falsely did make a certain false instrument in writing, purporting to be the act of A. D. Renshaw; which said false instrument is as follows, that is to say:
‘For value received, on or before the first day of December next, we or either of us promise to pay Mr. Crattic, or order, the amount of fifteen bushels of corn. This June 23d, 1868.
+--------------------------+
¦Sureties,¦D. L. HORTON, ¦
+---------+----------------¦
¦ ¦A. D. RENSHAW.' ¦
+--------------------------+
Said instrument, with the name of D. L. Horton on the back, and that the said D. L. Horton then and there feloniously and falsely did make said false instrument with the felonious and fraudulent intent to defraud, contrary,” etc.
The cause came to trial at the November term, 1868, and being found guilty, his punishment was assessed by the jury at two years in the penitentiary. The important portions of the evidence appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.
Defendant's motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment being overruled, he appealed.
Robertson & Herndon, for the appellant.
W. H. Andrews, Acting Attorney General, for the state.
The only question, worthy of special notice, is as to the sufficiency of the indictment.
If the instrument in writing, set out in indictment, showed a proper stamp of internal revenue, legally canceled, there could be no question.
By comparing the common law definition of forgery, 4 Bla. Com. 274; Whart. Cr. Law, § 1418, 4th ed.; 2 Russell, Crime, marginal, 318, with the definition in our Criminal Code, P. D. art. 2093, it will be seen that those definitions are the same, in substance, so far as it is necessary to render the common law authorities applicable in this investigation.
It has been held that one might commit a forgery, in England, upon unstamped paper while the stamp acts of 22 Geo. III, c. 33, 23 Geo. III, etc. were in force. 2 Rus. Cr. marginal, 346-7.
There is greater reason to hold here now that this is forgery than that forgery could be committed upon unstamped paper in England during the existence of her stamp acts, because there was no provision in those acts whereby the holder of an instrument upon unstamped paper could procure a stamp to be affixed, as is the case in our stamp act. Stat. at Large, vol. 14, p. 143, 2d and 3d provisos.
The “making” of a forged instrument is complete without the affixing of the proper stamp. Stat. at Large, vol. 14. p. 143, 2d and 3d provisos.
The ruling of the court, admitting said instrument in evidence, is clearly right, if the indictment is good, as above contended.
But if said ruling were wrong, it has not been brought to the knowledge of this court in such manner as would authorize its revision.
This was an indictment for an alleged forgery, of the following instrument in writing, by the defendant:
“For value received, on or before the first day of December next, we, or either of us, promise to pay Mr. Crattic, or order, the amount of fifteen bushels of corn. This June 23d, 1868.
+--------------------------+
¦Sureties.¦D. R. HORTON, ¦
+---------+----------------¦
¦ ¦A. D. RENSHAW.” ¦
+--------------------------+
Upon the trial it was proved by the co-obligor, A. D. Renshaw, that he neither signed said instrument in writing, nor did he authorize any one to sign his name to it; that he had seen the note in the hands of the payee, Crattic, who had demanded payment of him; that he was familiar with the handwriting of D. L. Horton, and believed that the body of the note and the name of D. L. Horton was in the handwriting of the defendant; but that he could not and would not say that the name “A. D. Renshaw,” thereto signed, was in the defendant's handwriting; that it was not in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...the instrument, if genuine, would have created, increased, diminished, or discharged or defeated any pecuniary obligation. See Horton v. State, 32 Tex. 79; Labbaite v. State, 6 Tex. App. 257; Morris v. State, 17 Tex. App. 660; Dooley v. State, 21 Tex. App. 549, 2 S. W. 884. It is drawn in t......
- State v. Killough