Langford v. State

Citation14 So. 815,33 Fla. 233
PartiesLANGFORD v. STATE.
Decision Date16 February 1894
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to criminal court of record, Escambia county; E. C. Maxwell Judge.

W. H Langford was convicted of uttering forged paper, and brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. On the trial of an accused for uttering an instrument having on it forged indorsements, knowing at the time that they were forged, and with an intent to defraud and injure, the utterance by the defendant, near the same time, but previously, of other notes with forged indorsements, and his possession and attempting to negotiate subsequently, but near the same time, another note with forged indorsements on it and a guaranty to one of the makers thereof with forged signatures, are admissible as evidence that defendant knew when he uttered the instrument described in the information, that the indorsements were forged, and of a criminal intent in uttering the same.

2. Evidence that the accused had, at the time of uttering the forged instrument described in the information, knowledge that other forged instruments testified to have been uttered by him, or to have been in his possession and used by him, were forgeries, is not necessary to entitle the consideration of the latter by the jury.

3. An instruction to the effect that if the jury found the former life of the accused was such that the criminal act charged would not naturally and reasonably find place in it, they might permit such conclusion to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt, although the evidence satisfied them that he had committed the act charged, and, if it did raise such a doubt, they must acquit, is not a charge upon the law of the case, nor is it correct as a principle to guide the jury in reaching a verdict, and was properly refused.

4. Testimony as to previous excellent character of the accused will not justify interference with a conviction where, conceding such character, it is fully supported by the evidence.

COUNSEL

John C. Avery, for plaintiff in error.

W. B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by RANCY C.J.:

The first count of the information charges the plaintiff in error with forgery, and on this count there was a verdict of acquittal. The second count charges that W. H. Langford, on July 19, 1893, in Escambia county, in this state, having in his possession a certain instrument of the stated date, and purporting to be made at Pensacola, Fla., and set out in full, and which, so far as its legal import need be given, is a promise of Langford to pay to the order of Lee Daniell, at the First National Bank of Pensacola, $500, six month after date, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. from date until paid, with a waiver of demand and protest, and notice of demand, nonpayment, and protest, and an agreement to pay all costs of collection, including 10 per cent. attorney's fees, such instrument having on its back a false, forged, and counterfeit indorsement in the following words: 'Antonio Rierra,' 'Richard Swaine,' 'J. M. Crona,'--did then and there, well knowing the said indorsements to be false, forged, and counterfeit, utter and publicsh the same to one Lee Daniell as true, with the intent of him, the said Langford, then and there to injure and defraud, against the form, etc. Upon this count the jury returned a verdict of guilty with a recommendation of mercy, and, a motion for a new trial having been denied, the court sentenced the accused to imprisonment in the county jail at hard labor for the period of 12 months, and to this judgment a writ of error has been brought.

Upon the trial, Lee Daniell, a state witness, testified that about July 17, 1893, the accused told him that he needed $500 in his business to carry him through the summer, and asked him to let him have it, and offered to give him his note with Richard Swaine's indorsement. Witness not being satisfied with this security, the defendant offered to have Anthony Rierra also indorse the note; and on the 19th of July, witness, being satisfied with the indorsements, gave the accused his check for $500, and the accused gave witness the note or instrument described in the information, which instrument was put in evidence. Richard Swaine testified that he did not sign his name on the instrument, or authorize any one else to do so; that he had conversations with defendant about his name being on some paper, but cannot say it was with reference to this particular paper; that defendant approached him at one time in Palafox street, and begged him for God's sake to acknowledge the name of Richard Swaine as witness' signature, and if not for his sake, for the sake of his father and mother. James Crona testified that he did not put his name on the paper, or authorize any one else to do so. Anthony Rierra testified that his name was Anthony, and not Antonio, Rierra, and that he did not write or authorize it to be written on the note, and that he was the only person named Anthony Rierra in Pensacola, and never knew or heard of any one named Antonio Rierra.

The state then recalled Daniell, who identified a certain note dated Pensacola, Fla., June 5, 1893, whereby William Blumer and H. Blumer promised to pay to the order of W. H. Langford $180, with interest at 10 per cent., six months after date, at the Citizens' National Bank, with provisions as to waiver and costs and attorney's fees as above, and indorsed 'W. H. Langford,' 'Richard Swaine;' and stated that he discounted it for Langford getting it from him near the time that he got the $500 note, and paying him money for it. Richard Swaine, being recalled, stated that he did not write his name, or authorize it to be written, on the note. R. M. Cary, Jr., a witness for the state, identified a note dated Pensacola, Fla., July 5, 1893, whereby W. H. Langford promises to pay at the bank last named to the order of Richard Swaine, 10 days after date, $200, with similar waiver and provisions as to costs and attorney's fees, and purporting to be indorsed 'Richard Swaine.' Cary testified that he recognized the note as one he discounted for defendant through L. W. Williams, the latter asking witness to let him have $200 on good paper stating that Langford had requested him as a friend to see about it, saying that Langford needed the money, and could give Richard Swaine as an indorser, and witness replying that it would be satisfactory, and Williams bringing witness the note with Swaine's indorsement on it, and getting the money. Cary also testified that in the law office of William Fisher, after witness' conversation with Swaine, the defendant acknowledged to witness that this note and others passed by him were forgeries. L. W. Williams deposed that he was a personal friend of defendant, who told witness that he needed money in his business, and asked witness to suggest some one from whom he could get it, and witness named R. M. Cary, Jr., who had been discounting good paper; and defendant asked witness to see Cary, who did so, and found he could get the money on note with Swaine's indorsement. That Langford handed to witness the note, with the indorsement, and witness went to Cary, and got the money on it, less a bonus charged and retained by Cary for discounting the note. Witness did not see Swaine indorse the note, did not charge or receive any commission for having the note discounted for Langford, but gave him all the money he obtained from Cary. Swaine testified that the name Richard Swaine, indorsed on this note, was not written by him or by his authority. A. C. Blount, Jr., identified the following instruments: First. A promissory note signed by W. H. Langford, dated Pensacola, Fla., August 8, 1893, for $1,000 and interest at 10 per cent., payable five months after date to the order of Joseph Wilkins, at the bank last named, at the rate of $200 per month until paid, with a similar provision of waiver and as to costs and attorney's fees, and indorsed 'Antonio Rierra,' 'Robt. H. Langford,' 'J. M. Crona,' 'Thos. Johnson,' 'Richard Swaine,' 'Mrs. S. Swaine,' and 'A. C. Blount, Jr.;' the two last names being, the bill of exceptions states, crossed out. Second. A written instrument dated Pensacola, August 11, 1893, and purporting to be signed by Robert H. Langford, Antonio Rierra, Richard Swaine, and Thomas Johnson, and to bind them, and each of them, in consideration of A. C. Blount, Jr., agreeing to indorse the note just described, which note is stated to have been indorsed by said four parties to pay said note when due, if not paid by W. H. Langford, and to hold Blount harmless against all liability upon such note, and not to call on him for contribution, and in the event of suit on the note to pay all costs and charges secured thereby. Blount also testified that his indorsement, though now scratched out, was genuine; that the defendant brought him the note, with the names preceding his own indorsed thereon, and asked witness to give him his indorsement; that Joseph Wilkins was not satisfied to let him have the money on the note with the indorsements on it, but would be satisfied if witness should indorse it; and that the defendant offered to have the other indorsers give witness a guaranty to save him from liability, and that he indorsed the note at the request of defendant, who gave him the guaranty above set forth for his protection; that witness scratched out his name after he learned that the other indorsements were forgeries; that witness wrote the guaranty, and gave it to defendant to have it signed, and the latter left the office for this purpose, and returned with it signed, and said that he had seen all the indorsers except Crona, and asked witness if he would take it as it was; that witness was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Pittman v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1906
    ... ... upon the admission in evidence of other instruments in ... writing, which were claimed to be forged and of proof that ... defendant had the same in his possession. No detailed ... discussion of these assignments, in our opinion, is ... necessary. We refer to the case of Langford v ... State, [51 Fla. 119] 33 Fla. 233, 14 So. 815, the first ... and second headnotes of which are as follows: ... '(1) ... On the trial of an accused for uttering an instrument having ... on it forged indorsements, knowing at the time that they were ... forged, and with an intent ... ...
  • Wallace v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1899
    ... ... open to the accused. For leading cases upon this subject, see ... State v. Lapage, 57 N.H. 245, referred to ... approvingly in Mann v. State, 22 Fla. 600; ... Trogdon v. Com., 31 Grat. 862; State v ... Myers. 82 Mo. 558. See, also, Langford v ... State, 33 Fla. 233, 14 So. 815; Reg. v. Francis, L ... R. 2 Cr. Cas. 128; Makin v. Attorney General ... (1894) App. Cas. 57; State v. Fallon, 2 N. D. 510, ... 52 N.W. 318; Rafferty v. State, 91 Tenn. 655, 16 ... S.W. 728; State v. Turley, 142 Mo. 403, 44 S.W. 267; ... ...
  • Anthony v. State, 70--457
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 1971
    ...or to show a common scheme or design, Talley v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201; or to show guilty knowledge, Langford v. State, 1894, 33 Fla. 233, 14 So. 815; or where it is impossible to give a complete or intelligent account of the crime charged without referring to the other cri......
  • Green v. State, 6828
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 7, 1966
    ...or to show a common scheme or design, Talley v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201; or to show guilty knowledge, Langford v. State, 1894, 33 Fla. 233, 14 So. 815; or where it is impossible to give a complete or intelligent account of the crime charged without referring to the other cri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT