Knowles v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1903 |
| Citation | 74 S.W. 767 |
| Parties | KNOWLES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Morris County; J. M. Talbot, Judge.
E. L. Knowles was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Reversed.
Bolin & Terrell, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the forgery of a note, in that he signed without authority, and with intent to defraud, the name of J. N. Haney. He sought a continuance on account of the absence of his wife, who, on account of her sickness and physical condition, was unable to attend the trial. Appellant's contention was that he was authorized by Haney himself to sign the name of Haney. Haney swore one way and appellant the other in regard to this matter. By his absent wife he expected to show that she was present at the home of herself and appellant, and heard the conversation between appellant and Haney in which Haney authorized appellant to go to the town of Omaha, and make a note to a certain bank for the sum of money specified in the note, and sign his (Haney's) name to it. The motion for new trial, based upon the failure to grant the continuance, should have been awarded.
The charge of the court is criticised because it failed to submit for the consideration of the jury the good faith of defendant in signing the name of Haney. As before stated, appellant swore that Haney had authorized him to sign it, and, acting upon this, he went to the town of Omaha, and signed Haney's name to said note. This matter came up between the parties, landlord and tenant, in connection with some other matters, and, it seems, among other things, an outstanding indebtedness of $16. Now, if Haney authorized appellant to sign the name, or if appellant believed he had a right to sign the name under all the existing circumstances, he would not be guilty. McCay v. State, 22 S. W. 974. Upon another trial this matter should be submitted in the charge to the jury.
In regard to the newly discovered testimony, it is sufficient to say that upon another trial his testimony can be secured.
For the error indicated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seelbinder v. American Surety Co
... ... 806, 44 So. 772; 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, ... page 1032; 20 C. J., page 491; Wadley v ... Commonwealth, 35 S.E. 452; Eatman v. State, 37 ... So. 579; State v. Culver (Neb.), 97 N.W. 1015, 10 ... Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.) 997; 2 Clark and Marshall, ... Law of Crimes, 810; ... Lee, 12 F. 816, 818; Kansas Flour Co. v. American ... Surety Co., of New York, 158 P. 1118; May v ... State, 76 So. 636; Knowles v. State, 74 S.W ... 767; 21 R. C. L. 1098, sec. 135; Geo. Birrell, Inc., v ... Casualty Co., [155 Miss. 23] 188 N.W. 26; Monongahela ... Coal ... ...
- State v. Churchill
-
Bradley v. State
...and defendant's plea of not guilty, whether the act charged, if done, was done with the "intent to injure or defraud."' In Knowles v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 74 S.W. 767, the says: 'Now, if Haney authorized appellant to sign the name, or if appellant believed he had a right to sign the name und......
-
Willetts v. Scudder
...and defendant's plea of not guilty, whether the act charged, if done, was done with the 'intent to injure or defraud."' In Knowles v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 74 S.W. 767, court says: "Now, if Haney authorized appellant to sign the name, or if appellant believed he had a right to sign the name......