Luttrell v. State

• Decision Date: 30 October 1886
• Citation: 1 S.W. 886,85 Tenn. 232
• Parties: LUTTRELL v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

1 S.W. 886

85 Tenn. 232

LUTTRELL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 30, 1886

Appeal from criminal court, Knox county.

Indictment for forgery. Defendant appeals.

M. S Hall and W. L. Ledgerwood, for plaintiff in error.

G. W Pickle, Atty. Gen., for the State.

CALDWELL J.

R. J Luttrell, a justice of the peace for Knox county, was indicted and convicted in the criminal court at Knoxville for forging a bill of costs. He has appealed in error to this court, and many reasons upon which it is claimed a reversal should be had have been pressed upon us by his counsel in argument.

The indictment charges--

"That R.J. Luttrell, on the twelfth day of November, 1885, in Knox county, unlawfully, fraudulently, and feloniously did make, utter, and forge a certain paper writing, in words and figures as follows, to-wit:

"' The State v. Elizabeth Bell. Judgment in favor of defendant. (Vagrancy.) Bill of costs:

War., 50; judgt., 75; affi'd, 10; wit. affi'd, 15; docket, 15; 1 subp.

10; wit. 70, ......................................................... $ 2 45

Officer I. W. Perry, arrest, 1.00; sum., 10; wit., 2.50, ................. 3 50

Wit. Robt. Bell, 50; Wm. Drummon, .......................................... 50

Geo. White, 50; Jas. Pratt, 50; Jno. Burnett, .............................. 50

Jno. Roberts, 50; N. F. Luttrell, 50, .................................... 4 00

------

* * * .................................................................. $10 95

[Signed]

"'R. J. LUTTRELL, J. P.'

"* * * Which said paper writing * * * was a forgery in this: The said R. J. Luttrell is a justice of the peace for the 23d civil district of Knox county and state of Tennessee, and in making out his costs against the county of Knox, as justice of the peace, he incorporated therein the case of the State v. Elizabeth Bell, for vagrancy, with accruing costs, as shown by the paper aforesaid, to the amount of ten 95-100 dollars, which was false, fraudulent, and felonious, * * * made and uttered to the prejudice of Knox county, * * * by the said R. J. Luttrell; and he, the said R. J. Luttrell, well knew the same to be false, fraudulent, and felonious when he so made and uttered the same, to the prejudice of the rights of Knox county as aforesaid. So the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that the said R. J. Luttrell, in the making and uttering of the foregoing claim against the said Knox county, unlawfully, fraudulently, and feloniously committed forgery to the prejudice of Knox county. * * *"

It is insisted by counsel that the indictment should be quashed upon two grounds: (1) Because no offense is sufficiently charged; (2) because a man cannot be guilty of a forgery in making a paper writing and signing his own name to it.

Neither of these positions is tenable. As to the first, we need only say that the charge is made with such degree of certainty as to enable the court to pronounce a proper judgment in case of conviction. Of this there can be no doubt, and that is all that is required. Code, (M. & V.) 5946.

The answer to the second is equally obvious and easy. By our statute "forgery is the fraudulent making or alteration of any writing to the prejudice of another's rights." Code, 5492. Forgery is one class of common-law cheats, and is, by Bishop, defined as "the false making, or materially altering, with intent to defraud, of any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy, or the foundation of legal liability." 1 Bish. Crim. Law, § 1008.

Manifestly, the bill of costs alleged to have been forged by Luttrell is a "writing" within the scope of the definition given. It is a writing authorized, and in fact required, by law, to entitle a justice of the peace to receive payment of his costs in criminal cases. Code, 6450. His bill of costs is his demand for service rendered in legal proceedings before him. If it be genuine, it has undoubted "legal efficacy," and is "the foundation of legal liability;" and if it be in due form, though not genuine, it may, and will, if used, operate "to the prejudice of another's rights,"--in civil cases, to the prejudice of the person against whom the costs are assessed; and in criminal cases, where the judgment is for the defendant, to the prejudice of the county.

The state or a county is a person, in contemplation of the law against forgery, and a writing made to the prejudice of either is, in the language of the statute, a writing "to the prejudice of another's rights." Garner v. State, 5 Lea, 213; Foute v. State, 15 Lea, 712. "Lord COKE says that 'forgery is properly taken when the act is done in the name of another person.' Yet there is a doctrine stated also by COKE, which seems to rest on ancient adjudication, and is sustained by the English...