Hurst v. State

• Decision Date: 15 June 1911
• Citation: Hurst v. State, 1 Ala.App. 235, 56 So. 18 (Ala. App. 1911)
• Parties: HURST v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

56 So. 18

1 Ala.App. 235

HURST v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 15, 1911

Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thomas W. Coleman, Jr., Judge.

Tom Hurst was convicted of crime, and he appeals.Affirmed.

Knox, Acker & Blackmon, for appellant.

R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and T. H. Seay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER P.J.

The court overruled an objection made by the defendant to the introduction in evidence of a written instrument which corresponded in all respects with the instrument set out in the several counts of the indictment except that the word "canceled" was written across the face of the instrument offered.This paper was offered after proof had been introduced tending to show that the signature to it was a forgery.The grounds of the objection were that the evidence offered was incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, and that the defendant was not shown to have any connection with the signing of the name to the instrument or to have executed the same.

The ground now urged in support of the exception reserved to this ruling is that proof of defendant's connection with the instrument should have been required before permitting the introduction of the paper in evidence.Clearly the paper became proper evidence in the case when considered with the evidence subsequently introduced tending to show the defendant's connection with it and that the word "canceled," was written upon the paper after it passed from his possession.Lampkin v. State,105 Ala. 1, 16 So. 575."It is of no consequence in what order the evidence is introduced, as far as its ultimate legitimacy is concerned, provided, in its relation to the other evidence in the case, it is at the end pertinent to the issue."Jones on Evidence, § 812.

In connection with the evidence tending to show the forgery and uttering by the defendant of a cotton receipt, filled out on a form abstracted from a stubbook in use by Robinson Bros., whose signature was alleged to have been forged, it was proper to admit proof of the use of such stubbook by that firm in the issuance of cotton receipts, that the number on the receipt which evidence tended to show was filled out by and was in the possession of the defendant was the number missing from the stubbook, and that the stub, as well as the corresponding form of receipt, was abstracted from the book.The proof offered in that connection was pertinent to the inquiry as to the legitimacy of the origin of the instrument in question, and there was no error in its admission.

The defendant as a witness in his own behalf having testified that he went to the place of business of Robinson Bros. after the date of the alleged forging and uttering of the cotton receipt and before his arrest, he was asked by his counsel if he went there voluntarily.The defendant excepted to the action of the court in sustaining the objection of the solicitor to this question.There is no merit in this exception.The defendant could not by his subsequent act make evidence for himself.Brown v. State,150 Ala. 25, 43 So. 194.Proof as to how the defendant happened to go to that place before his arrest was not in rebuttal of any evidence offered by the state, and was not pertinent to any issue in the case.Whether the question was otherwise objectionable need not be considered.

In the course of his examination as a witness in his own behalf, the defendant stated that he went to Selma that day, referring to the day mentioned in the incriminating evidence offered by the state.The prosecution had not introduced any evidence tending to show that the defendant went to Selma or elsewhere.In that connection the defendant's counsel asked...