Lawless v. State
| Decision Date | 01 April 1902 |
| Citation | 114 Wis. 189,89 N.W. 891 |
| Parties | LAWLESS v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Sauk county; Robert G. Siebecker, Judge.
George Lawless was convicted of uttering a forged check, and brings error. Affirmed.
The plaintiff in error was tried, convicted, and sentenced to state prison for uttering a forged check. The check as originally drawn was as follows:
+---------------------------+
¦“Iron County Bank. ¦No. 34.¦
+---------------------------+
Crystal Falls, Mich., Aug. 5, 1901.
Pay to George Lawless or order $ 9...... fifty cents ..........................dollars.
C. T. Roberts.”
The forgery consisted in putting the figure “5” before the figure “9” in the check. The plaintiff in error requested one Jacob Kiefer, a saloon keeper at Ableman, Wis., to cash the check for him, telling him it was for $59.50. He received $59 for the check, Mr. Kiefer retaining 50 cents for cashing it. The evidence showed that plaintiff in error had been employed at Crystal Falls, Mich., by Mr. Roberts, who was a mining superintendent. The latter had promised to pay his transportation to North Freedom, Wis., and gave him the check for $9.50 for that purpose. The evidence also showed the forgery as stated. At the close of the evidence the counsel for accused moved the court to directa verdict of acquittal on the ground that no material alteration in the check had been shown. The motion was denied, and duly excepted to. He then requested the court to charge the jury that the alteration shown was not material. This was also denied, and excepted to. There was no motion for a new trial, no exceptions to the charge, and no motion in arrest of judgment. The case is brought here for review on writ of error.
Evan A. Evans, for plaintiff in error.
C. R. Hicks, Atty. Gen., for the State.
BARDEEN, J. (after stating the facts).
There was no motion for a new trial and no exceptions to the charge. The only question for consideration is the one arising upon the denial of the motion to direct a verdict of acquittal, and upon the refusal of the court to instruct the jury as requested. That such questions are properly before us for consideration has been decided by this court in several cases. See Zahn v. Railway Co. (decided herewith) 89 N. W. 889, and cases cited. The only case to which our attention has been called seeming to hold a different rule is Reed v. City of Madison, 85 Wis. 667, 56 N. W. 182. In that case the motion for a new trial was not interposed until after judgment, and no appeal was taken from the order denying the motion. The decision is right on principle, but what was said in reference to the court's reviewing the evidence, in absence of a motion for a new trial, must be read in connection with what was said in Bank v. Larson, 80 Wis. 469, 50 N. W. 499, and is limited thereby. The refusal of the court to direct a verdict, when properly excepted to and preserved in the bill of exceptions, requires this court to review the testimony in order to determine whether the motion should have been granted.
The proof disclosed that Roberts gave plaintiff in error a check intended to be for $9.50, but written in the form set out in the statement. The latter knew the amount, and knew it was given to pay his transportation to Wisconsin. When he presented the check, and requested Mr. Kiefer to cash it, it had been changed, and he represented it to call for a much larger amount. An expert might not have been deceived by the change, but one inexperienced in handling checks might very well have been deceived, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simpson v. First Nat. Bank of Roseburg
...payee, then by force of the express terms of the statute the plaintiff would be entitled to the indorsement of the bank. Lawless v. State, 114 Wis. 189, 192, 89 N.W. 891. And so, too, in the absence of a statute she could compel bank to indorse the note. Unterharnscheidt v. Missouri State L......
-
McNamer v. American Ins. Co.
...469, 50 N.W. 499; McGinn v. French, 107 Wis. 54, 82 N.W. 724; Zahn v. Milwaukee & S. R. Co., 114 Wis. 38, 89 N.W. 889; Lawless v. State, 114 Wis. 189, 89 N.W. 891; Kopplin v. Quade, 145 Wis. 454, 130 N.W. 511. We conclude that the rule to be applied is properly stated in Plankinton v. Gorma......
-
Parr v. Ft. Pierce Bank & Trust Co.
... ... Ft. Pierce Bank & Trust Company, but that she is entitled to ... such indorsement under the laws of the state of Florida. She ... alleges that she has demanded the indorsement by the Ft ... Pierce Bank & Trust Company and demanded payment of the ... the statute the plaintiff would be entitled to the ... indorsement of the bank. Lawless v. State, 114 ... Wis. 189, 192, 89 N.W. 891. And so, too, in the absence of ... a statute she could compel the bank to indorse the note ... [100 ... ...
-
Maloney v. State
... ... the person to whom it is offered might not accept it without ... a written assignment. But in the instrument set out in the ... indictment one might obtain a right or an equitable title ... without a written assignment. Smith v ... State, 20 Neb. 284, 29 N.W. 923; Lawless v ... State, 114 Wis. 189, 89 N.W. 891; Brazil v ... State, 117 Ga. 32, 43 S.E. 460. And the check could ... be transferred without a written assignment thereof so as to ... make the transferee the true owner thereof. Heartman ... v. Franks, 36 Ark. 501; Lanigan v ... North, 69 Ark. 62, 63 ... ...