Lynch v. State
| Decision Date | 01 November 1899 |
| Parties | LYNCH v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Palo Pinto county; J. S. Straughan, Judge.
Marshall Lynch was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
Wm. Veale & Son and W. H. Penix, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of forgery, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary, and he appeals.
Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment on the ground that it did not sufficiently charge an offense, in that there were no explanatory or innuendo averments to show that the instrument on which the forgery was declared imported an obligation. In order to present this question, we quote so much of the indictment as is necessary:
That Marshall Lynch, "without lawful authority, and with intent to defraud, did willfully and fraudulently alter an instrument in writing, then and there already in existence, and which had theretofore been made by W. T. Sims, said Sims being, when he made such instrument, the agent and servant of C. H. Bowen, and acting for said Bowen in the making thereof, and which said instrument, at the time it was so made, and before it was altered as aforesaid by the said Marshall Lynch, was to the tenor following:
Unquestionably, the instrument set out is the subject of forgery, but, in our opinion, there should have been apt explanatory averments showing how said instrument became an obligation affecting money or property. It should have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chowning v. State
...since the case was orally presented. Among them are the following: Millsaps v. State, 38 Tex.Cr.R. 570; 43 S.W. 1015; Lynch v. State, 41 Tex. Cr.R. 209, 53 S.W. 693; Black v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 585, 61 S.W. 478; Carrell v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 231, 184 S.W. 190; Young v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R.......
-
Reeseman v. State
...important of these and the ones claimed to be more directly in point are the cases of Nasets v. State, 32 S. W. 693, Lynch v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 203, 53 S. W. 693, and White v. State, 24 Tex. App. 231, 5 S. W. 857, 5 Am. St. Rep. 879. These cases do not, we think, support the proposition......
-
Massingill v. State, 28530
...Tex.Cr.R. 109, 44 S.W. 1097; Wilson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 75 S.W. 504; Carder v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 105, 31 S.W. 678; Lynch v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 209, 53 S.W. 693. This holding makes it unnecessary that we pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction for the offense ......
-
Watson v. State
...be an extrinsic averment showing whether it was a corporation, joint-stock company, or a partnership. This was held in Lynch v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 209, 53 S. W. 693. It is again asserted that, if the alleged forged instrument is an ordinary commercial instrument importing a pecuniary obl......