Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 1910 |
| Citation | 130 S.W. 1012 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; W. H. Pope, Judge.
J. J. Jones was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment contains several counts charging appellant with forgery of a bond in a guardianship.
Appellant's contentions may be summed up in one proposition; that is, take the whole case, the indictment does not show a violation of the law. The facts seem to be incontestable that the bond was a forgery, so far as the names of the bondsmen are concerned. The record further discloses: That there was a minor by the name of Harvey Sanders, who was over the age of 14 years. That appellant filed an application to the probate court, asking for letters of guardianship of the person and the estate, or either. That the estate was of the value of $450 in money. This application was filed on the 30th of September, 1909. The minor filed waiver of citation and acceptance of service, and selected appellant as his guardian of both person and the estate, and asked the county judge to grant letters of guardianship. It seems that on the same day (September 30th) the appointment was made, and the bond fixed in the sum of $900. On the 5th day of November this bond was presented to and approved by the county judge, and appellant took the oath as guardian of the person and estate of the minor. With reference to these facts there seems to be no issue or contention.
Appellant's proposition is that the bond is not such an instrument as can form the basis of forgery, in that some of the terms of the statute with reference to citation, notice, etc., are not complied with. The law provides for the acceptance of service without the issuance of citation by the minor when he is above 14 years of age. The record does not definitely show whether citation was issued in regard to the notice of application or not; but, concede there was no notice given of the application at all, and that the bond was not filed for nearly 40 days after the waiver of citation by the minor and the appointment of Jones as guardian, then we are of opinion that appellant's proposition is not correct. The writing need not be such as, if genuine, would be legally valid. An instrument valid on its face is equally the subject of forgery, although collateral or extrinsic facts may exist which would render it absolutely void, if genuine. People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 509; People v. Galloway, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 540; Russell on Crimes, 317 to 328; State v. Johnson, 26 Iowa, 407, 96 Am. Dec. 158; State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State, 19131.
...had been complied with in reference to the adoption of an order, and the publication thereof. In the case of Jones v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 67, 130 S.W. 1012, 1013, this court, speaking through Judge Davidson, said: "An instrument valid on its face is equally the subject of forgery, although ......
-
Richards v. State
...subject to forgery, but otherwise if valid on its face, though invalid as a matter of fact or under proof." See, also, Jones v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 67, 130 S. W. 1012; Dreeben v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 341, 162 S. W. 501; Carrell v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 198, 184 S. W. Bill of exception No......
-
Massingill v. State, 28530
...Branch's Ann.P.C. 2d Ed., Sec. 1587, p. 727; 37 C.J.S., Forgery, Sec. 18, p. 45; Morris v. State, 17 Tex.App. 660; Jones v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 67, 130 S.W. 1012; Wheeler v. State, 62 Tex.Cr.R. 370, 137 S.W. 124; Dreeben v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 341, 162 S.W. 501, 505; Honeycutt v. State, 150......
-
Honeycutt v. State
...question has been settled and that the rule laid down in King v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 108, 57 S.W. 840, 96 Am.St.Rep. 792; Jones v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 67, 130 S.W. 1012; and Carter v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 457, 116 S.W.2d 371, determines the question now before us in favor of the state's con......