McDonald v. State
| Citation | 3 So. 305,83 Ala. 46 |
| Parties | MCDONALD v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 12 December 1887 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from city court of Mobile; O. J. SEMMES, Judge.
Indictment for forgery. The indictment in this case charged the defendant, Robert McDonald, with the forgery of an order in writing, which, as set out in the indictment, was dated April 18, 1887, addressed to Brisk & Jacobson, and purported to be signed by F. Kuppersmith, and was in these words "Please let the bearer, Harry Cohen, have a suit of clothes for $15, and a shirt and a suit of underclothes, and charge to" said Kuppersmith. The trial was had on issue joined on the plea of not guilty. On the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows, the state introduced W. T. Holt as a witness, who produced the writing alleged to have been forged, and testified that, on the day of its date, it was presented to him by the defendant; that he let the defendant have the goods specified, after consultation with Mr. Brisk and that he made out a bill for the goods against F Kuppersmith, at the request of the defendant, and handed it to the defendant. The state then introduced Fred Kuppersmith as a witness, who testified, in substance, that he always signed his name "F. Kuppersmith;" that he did not sign the said written instrument, and did not give it to the defendant; that the defendant and Harry Cohen had both worked for him "some time ago;" and that he had not seen Cohen in Mobile for three or four years. The prosecution then produced another written instrument, purporting to be signed by F. Kuppersmith, which was dated April 20, 1887, was addressed to "Mr. J. Denius," and in these words "Please give the bearer, R. McDonald, a pair of shoes for $2.50, and half dozen pairs of socks, and charge to" said Kuppersmith; "and asked said witness if he signed that order, or gave it to the defendant." It was proved that an indictment was then pending against the defendant alleging the forgery of said order. The defendant objected to the question, and also the answer of the witness, who stated "that he did not sign the paper, nor did he give it to the defendant;" to each of which rulings the defendant excepted. The court stated, in reply to an argument by the solicitor, that evidence of other similar forged paper of a like kind, found in the possession of the defendant on or about the time of the forgery charged, was competent evidence on a trial for forgery. This was all the evidence; the defendant offering none.
Syllabus by the Court.
As a general rule, evidence of other offenses, though of the same nature, is not admissible for the purpose of showing that the defendant is guilty of the particular offense charged; but one of the exceptions to the genral rule is that such evidence may be received to show the intent with which the act charged was committed.
Under an indictment for the forgery of a written order, which the defendant presented to the person on whom it was drawn, and obtained goods on the faith of it, it is permissible for the prosecution to prove his possession, at or about the same time, of another forged order in his own favor, purporting to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Preyer v. State
...of other forged checks is proper to show intent to defraud. Christison v. State, 41 Ala.App. 192, 142 So.2d 666. See also McDonald v. State, 83 Ala. 46, 3 So. 305; Hall v. State, 21 Ala.App. 476, 109 So. From the record, we find that the checks found on the appellant's person and presented ......
-
Christison v. State
...the false pretense scheme in Brown v. State, 37 Ala.App. 516, 74 So.2d 273, affirmed 261 Ala. 696, 74 So.2d 277, governs. In McDonald v. State, 83 Ala. 46, 3 So. 305, a forgery case, one purportedly forged note to a merchant was used to show intent to defraud through the utterance of anothe......
-
Huddleston v. State
...inferred by the jury from the evidence and need not be proven by positive and direct evidence. Gooden v. State, 55 Ala. 178; McDonald v. State, 83 Ala. 46, 3 So. 305; McGee v. State, 20 Ala.App. 221, 101 So. To sustain a conviction for forgery it is not necessary to prove that damage or inj......
-
Harris v. State
...that when she cried out defendant attacked her in such wise that it became relevant as tending to show defendant's intent. McDonald v. State, 83 Ala. 46, 3 So. 305; Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313; Ingram State, 39 Ala. 247, 84 Am.Dec. 782. Defendant's attempts to kill or terrify the wif......