Meredith v. State

• Decision Date: 04 March 1914
• Citation: 164 S.W. 1019
• Parties: MEREDITH v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

164 S.W. 1019

MEREDITH v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1914.

Rehearing Denied April 1, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Mason County; Clarence Martin, Judge.

H. L. Meredith was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Flack & Dalrymple, of Llano, and Joe P. Flack, of San Saba, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of forgery, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment alleges that appellant forged the names of George Willis, L. F. Lehmberg, Willie Birk, and W. R. Jones to a note for $550, payable to the order of J. T. Simpson. Mr. Simpson testified that appellant delivered such a note to him, and he loaned him $500 on the note. George Willis testified that he never signed the note nor authorized appellant to sign his name to it. L. F. Lehmberg testified that he did not sign the note, nor authorize appellant nor any other person to sign his name to the note; that he was never approached in regard to this transaction by appellant. Willie Birk testified that he never signed the note nor authorized any other person to sign his name to the note; that he was never requested to sign the note, nor any mention of it made to him. W. R. Jones also testified that he did not sign the note in question, nor authorize any one else to sign his name to it. George Willis is the only one who says he was ever requested to sign the note, and says he declined to do so, on account of conditions then existing. Appellant testified and admitted he signed the names of these gentlemen to the note in question, but says they "implied consent to him in conversation that he had with them." He says Willie Birk had signed a note payable to Mrs. Doxy that he did not use; that Lehmburg had also signed the note to Mrs. Doxy; that he believed these men would have signed the $550 note, as they had signed the $240 note to Mrs. Doxy. He further admits that he never told these men that he had signed their names to the $550 note to Simpson. However, he stated that he was at Field Creek in Llano county when he signed the names of these men to the note, and mailed it at Field Creek to Mr. Simpson at Llano. Mr. Simpson testified he received the note through the mail, but that it was his opinion that it was mailed to him from Pontotoc in Mason county. Appellant was in business at Pontotoc, but he says he had gone to Field Creek that day on business.

The defendant requested the following charge, which was by the court given: "When the person making an instrument in writing acts under authority, which he has good reason to believe and actually does believe to be sufficient, he is not guilty of forgery, though the authority be, in fact, insufficient and void; and this is true even though the person whose name is alleged to be forged, is not bound by such authority or by the instrument. And unless it is established in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant made the instrument alleged to be forged, and that he acted without authority of any one of the parties whose names it is alleged he forged, and that he had no good reason to believe and actually did not believe that he had sufficient authority from any one of the persons or parties whose names it is alleged were forged, then you will acquit the defendant."

Also the following charge was given at his request: "The false making of an instrument to constitute forgery must be done with intent to injure or defraud; and in this case, it is not sufficient to show that the names attached to the instrument set up in the indictment were forged. The further fact must be established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such act was done with intent on the part of the defendant, at the time of the committing of the alleged forgery, to injure or defraud; and, unless the jury so finds that the act, if done, was so done with the intent to injure or defraud, you will acquit the defendant. And the defendant would be entitled to acquittal even though it should appear that he was guilty of making the alleged forged instrument, and that he did receive money thereon."

On the question of venue the appellant requested the court to instruct the jury that if appellant did not write the names to the note in Mason county, they would acquit appellant, even though they should find that he mailed the note to Mr. Simpson at Pontotoc, in Mason county. This is not the law, and the court did not err in refusing this charge. Our Code provides (Code Cr. Proc. art. 235) that the offense of forgery may be prosecuted in any county where the written instrument was forged, or where the same was used or passed, or attempted to be used or passed. This identical question was passed on in Mason v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 95, 22 S. W. 144, 408, and Hocker v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 361, 30 S. W. 783, 53 Am. St. Rep. 716, and held adversely to appellant's contention. Even though the names were written to the note at Field Creek in Llano county, if in fact he mailed it to Mr. Simpson at Pontotoc, this would be the place he made use of the note, and would give venue to Mason county. The indictment is not subject to the objection made. Branch's Criminal Law, §§ 379, 381.

There is no serious conflict in the court's charge as given and charge No. 3, given at appellant's...