Mason v. State

• Decision Date: 29 April 1893
• Citation: 22 S.W. 144
• Parties: MASON v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

22 S.W. 144

MASON v. STATE.¹

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Gonzales county; M. Kennon, Special Judge.

E. Mason was convicted of fraudulently altering a draft, and appeals. Affirmed.

Fly & McMeal, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of fraudulently altering a genuine instrument, and sentenced to seven years in the penitentiary. The facts in this case are almost the same as proved in the case of Mason v. State, reported in 20 S. W. Rep. 564, which practically settles all the law questions that are raised in this, and which decision we see no reason to disturb. The only question that need be considered is the one going to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. The draft alleged to be fraudulently altered was retained by appellant after he failed to pass it upon the bank of G. N. Dilworth, so the state was compelled to resort to secondary evidence of the fact. It was proved by the cashier of the Galveston bank that upon the 9th day of January, 1892, he issued, as assistant cashier, a draft numbered 20,481, on Dilworth's bank, for $25, and issued no other draft on that day on Dilworth's bank of that number or amount, and that he never issued one for $2,500. By Dilworth the state proved that he declined to pay the draft presented by appellant on the 15th of January, 1892, until he could telegraph to Galveston, but took the date, number, and amount of the draft; that he did not then know the signature of Bergeron, the cashier, but now knows it, and it was the same signature he saw on the instrument; that the draft was a printed form of the bank, with the number 20,481 printed thereon, while the amount was both written and punched. The state further proved by Bergeron that the draft he issued had the figures 25 punched on it with a machine used for that purpose; that from experiments witness knows that the figures could be raised so as not to be readily detected. By George Schleicher, a cashier in the bank of Otto Buchel, at Cuero, the state proved that on January 13, 1892, defendant presented a draft on his bank for $2,000, drawn by W. L. Moody & Co., of Galveston, which he cashed. This draft had the figures (as is usual with such drafts) punched with a perforating machine, but a close examination with a magnifying glass revealed the fact that the two additional cyphers were made with a different machine;...