King v. State

• Decision Date: 08 May 1889
• Parties: KING <I>v.</I> STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

11 S.W. 525

KINGv.

STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

May 8, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Hill county; J. M. HALL, Judge.

S. C. Upshaw and D. Derden, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.

WHITE, P. J.

As set forth in the indictment, the offense was charged in the following language, viz.: That "William King did, in the county of Hill and state of Texas, on or about the 1st day of December, 1888, then and there willfully, knowingly, and fraudulently attempt to pass as true, to H. R. Smith, a forged instrument in writing, to the tenor following:

Weighed on Fairbanks' standard scales, Dec. 1, 1888:

                  Load of one load of corn
                  From Sam Simpson, to Patty & Brockington
                On gross............................. 2,513 lbs
                Off tare............................. 1,011 lbs
                                                      _____
                       Fees, net......................1,502 lbs
                

Net bus. Weigher. [Space for figuring on back side.]

— Which said instrument purported to be the certificate for said Sam Simpson of one load of corn weighed on said scales for the account of Patty & Brockington, and which said instrument, if true, would have created a pecuniary obligation on said Patty & Brockington to pay the legal owner and holder thereof for 1,502 pounds of corn; which said instrument in writing the said William King then and there knew to be forged, and did then and there attempt to pass the same as true, and with intent to injure and defraud, contrary to law, and against the peace and dignity of the state." A motion was made to quash the indictment, which was overruled by the court. The assistant attorney general confesses error, and admits that "upon the face of the indictment the instrument [declared on] does not create any liabilities upon the part of any one to be responsible for anything. (2) There are no innuendo averments, showing the facts or reasons why the said instrument created such liability, nor are there requisite explanations set out that make the alleged forged instrument a forged instrument in law." "If a writing is so incomplete in form as to leave an apparent uncertainty in law whether it is valid or not, a simple charge of forging it fraudulently etc., does not show an offense, but the indictment must set out such extrinsic facts as will enable the court to see that, if it were genuine, it would be valid." 2 Bish. Crim. Law, (7th Ed.) § 545. And "where an instrument is incomplete on its face, so that as it stands it cannot be...