Hughes v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1910 |
| Citation | 129 S.W. 837 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Delta County; R. L. Porter, Judge.
W. H. Hughes was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Affirmed.
Lane & Ratliff and Patteson & Patteson, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
On the 6th day of January of this year an indictment was returned into the district court of Delta county, charging appellant with forgery of a certain instrument in writing to the following effect: —and also in another count with passing as true said forged instrument. The conviction was under the first count. The evidence shows that about the 20th day of August, 1909, appellant presented to one H. W. Miller a check identical with that copied above and received the amount thereof in money. L. H. Myers, who is purported to have given the check, was introduced, and testified that he had not given same, nor had he authorized appellant or any one else to sign his name to said check. A number of witnesses were produced, who testified that the check in question was in their judgment in the handwriting of appellant. There was no evidence offered by appellant, or any account of his possession of the check in question, or how, from whom, or in what manner he acquired same. It is shown, further, that appellant and Myers lived close together, and Myers testified that they lived only 300 or 400 yards apart, and that he saw appellant on the day that the check bore date.
1. On the trial, among others, James A. Smith was introduced as a witness by the state, who was permitted to testify that, after examining two checks, one of which was shown clearly to have been executed by appellant, and the other being the check charged to have been forged, these checks were signed by the same person, and the person who signed the check admittedly genuine also signed the check charged to have been forged. This testimony was objected to, because it called for an opinion of the witness, and same was not the best evidence that could be had to establish the facts attempted to be proven. In approving the bill the court says that the witness was permitted to give his opinion after first qualifying to speak as an expert on handwriting. That this testimony was admissible we think there can be no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. State
...oath, but upon direct testimony of those claiming to have personal knowledge of the handwriting, such as was used in Hughes v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 294, 129 S. W. 837, and other cases on the subject cited in Jackson v. State, 193 S. W. 302. There was evidence of possession of the instrumen......
-
Whorton v. State
...the writing in the forged check. Phillips v. State, 6 Tex. App. 364; Williams v. State, 27 Tex. App. 471, 11 S. W. 481; Hughes v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 294, 129 S. W. 837. The defendant objected to the introduction of the statement of appellant in evidence on the ground that, while it showe......
-
Jackson v. State
...them, the conviction under the rule in this state will be sustained. Raines v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 94, 119 S. W. 93; Hughes v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 294, 129 S. W. 837; Batte v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 125, 122 S. W. 562. In the last-named case this rule is recognized both in the majority a......
-
Barber v. State
...to the inevitable conclusion that an instrument is a forgery, declares it to be such is not a harmful or reversible error. Hughes v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 294 "Appellant's seventh assignment in his brief is that it was error to allow witness Townes to read in evidence a transcript of the or......