Lucas v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1898 |
| Citation | 44 S.W. 825 |
| Parties | LUCAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Johnson county; J. M. Hall, Judge.
John Lucas was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Affirmed.
Mann Trice, for the State.
Conviction for forgery, in altering or raising a check drawn by W. B. Tarter and L. J. Pipes on the Farmers' & Merchants' National Bank of Cleburne, Tex. This indictment was drawn under article 431, Pen. Code. The forgery consisted in changing the following check:
"No. ____
"Farmers' and Merchants' National Bank
"Cleburne, Texas, March 21, 1893
"Pay to M. B. Lucas or bearer $20
"Twenty ............ Dollars
"W. B. Tarter and L. J. Pipes."
The check was changed or raised so as to make "$20" read "$25," and "Twenty Dollars" "Twenty-Five Dollars."
A motion was made to quash the indictment, because it did not allege that the Farmers' & Merchants' National Bank of Cleburne was incorporated. It is not necessary to make any such allegation. The instrument was a valid instrument for $20 as originally made; and, if the bank failed to pay the same, M. B. Lucas could have sued and maintained an action against the makers, W. B. Tarter and L. J. Pipes, for the amount thereof. This is altogether unlike the case of forging the signature of a bank. In such case it has been held that it was necessary to allege the incorporation of the bank.
We think the court wrongfully instructed the jury in this respect. It is not requisite "that, in order to constitute this offense, the accused, in committing the offense, intended to injure and defraud any particular person, or that any particular person was injured or defrauded by the forgery; but it is sufficient if it appears that possibly some one might be injured or defrauded thereby." It is true that it is not necessary for the defendant to intend to defraud any particular person, but the accused must intend to commit a fraud. That portion of the charge which states that it is sufficient if it appears that possibly some one might be injured or defrauded is wrong. A charge upon this subject, following the language of the statute, is sufficient in ordinary cases, telling the jury that they must believe from the testimony in the case that the defendant intended to commit a fraud when he committed the forgery or uttered the forged instrument, etc.
But the question before us now is, notwithstanding this charge was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jesse Conley
... ... banking institutions mentioned in the information was not ... shown. This was not necessary since they are not the parties ... alleged to have been defrauded. Watson v ... State, 82 Tex. Crim. 462, 199 S.W. 1098; ... Davis v. State, 70 Tex. Crim. 253, 156 S.W ... 1171. See, too, Lucas v. State, 39 Tex ... Crim. 48, 44 S.W. 825; State v. McKiernan, ... 17 Nev. 224, 30 P. 831; State v. Van Hart, ... 17 N.J.L. 327. There is no logical reason for holding ... otherwise, since the existence of the corporation is not in ... issue, but rather the ... [176 A. 301] ... guilt of ... ...
-
State v. Conley
...Watson v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 462, 199 S. W. 1098; Davis v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R 253, 156 S. W. 1171. See, too, Lucas v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 48, 44 S. W. 825; State v. McKiernan, 17 Nev. 224, 30 P. 831; State v. Van Hart, 17 N. J. Law, 327. There is no logical reason for holding otherwi......
-
Reeseman v. State
...instrument, to allege whether the person on which it is drawn is a corporation, partnership, or joint-stock company. Lucas v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 48, 44 S. W. 825; Webb v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 534, 47 S. W. 356. That this instrument, if genuine, imported an unconditional obligation, is a......
-
Townser v. State
...It was not their names which were alleged to be forged. Lamb-Campbell v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 628, 162 S. W. 879; Lucas v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 48, 44 S. W. 825; Webb v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 534, 47 S. W. 356; Usher v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 93, 81 S. W. 309; Reeseman v. State, supra. As ......