Lampkin v. State

• Decision Date: 05 December 1894
• Citation: Lampkin v. State, 105 Ala. 1, 16 So. 575 (Ala. 1894)
• Parties: LAMPKIN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So. 575

105 Ala. 1

LAMPKIN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 5, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Walker county; James J. Banks, Judge.

William Lampkin was convicted of forgery, and appeals.Affirmed.

The indictment contained three counts, the first of which was in the following language: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment, that William Lampkin, alias Sam Jones, with the intent to injure or defraud, falsely forged an instrument in writing purporting to be the act of one John Driver, in words and figures substantially as follows: 'Mr. Rwen [meaning thereby Mr. Wren]: Sir, please let John Mason have $2 50 cents, and charge it to John Driver[meaning thereby, signed John Driver].March 2d, 1894."'The second count of the complaint was the same as the first, with the exception that it charges the defendant with uttering and publishing "as true, an instrument in writing, purporting to be," etc.The third count is substantially the same as the first count.The defendant demurred to the indictment on the following grounds: (1) That it fails to show that the instrument of writing purported to be the act of another, by which a pecuniary demand or obligation is or purported to be created, increased, discharged, or diminished.(2) The said indictment puts a meaning to the instrument alleged to be forged other than its plain import.(3) Because the indictment undertakes to construe the meaning of the instrument alleged to have been forged.The demurrer was overruled.Thereupon the defendant moved the court to strike out from the demurrer as surplusage the words "meaning thereby, signed, John Driver."The court overruled this motion, and the defendant duly excepted.Upon the introduction of John Driver as a witness, his testimony tended to show that her never wrote, nor signed, nor authorized any one else to sign, the instrument alleged to have been forged.The testimony of Wren tended to show that he was in the employ of the Gaslight Coal Company on March 2 1894, as the storekeeper for said company; that the defendant presented to him, at the company's store, the instrument alleged to have been forged, and told him that he got it from John Driver at the mines; that John Driver had an account with the company for a credit of two dollars, which witness paid the defendant.The state then offered to introduce in evidence the instrument alleged to have been forged "and the defendant then and there objected."The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted.This being substantially all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charge, and separately excepted to the refusal of the court to give the same: "If the jury believe that...