Molton v. State

• Decision Date: 10 June 1891
• Citation: 16 S.W. 423
• Parties: MOLTON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 423

16 S.W. 423

MOLTON v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Anderson county.

Walter Molton appeals from a conviction of forgery.

Gammage & Gammage, for appellant. R. H. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

The indictment in this case concludes, "against the peace and dignity of the state," and using the character "&" in place of the word "and." It is urged by the appellant that this is not a sufficient compliance with the constitution and statute in respect to the conclusion of the indictment. Speaking of this, the supreme court of Alabama said that "the sign `&' for `and' has been used in practice too long for a court now to entertain an objection to its employment." Pickens v. State, 58 Ala. 364, 365. The use of well understood abbreviations in an indictment does not render it defective. State v. Reed, 35 Me. 489; Com. v. Hagarman, 10 Allen, 401; Com. v. Kingman, 14 Gray, 85; Kelly v. State, 3 Smedes & M. 518; 1 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 20. This court, in Brown v. State, 16 Tex. App. 247, 248, says: "In his appendix to his Unabridged Dictionary, under the title `Miscellaneous,' Mr. Webster makes the sign or abbreviation `&' mean the same as the word `and,' and Mr. Richardson, in his Dictionary, gives many illustrations from the old English authors under the word `and,' showing that the sign `&' was used synonymously with `and' as an abbreviation for the word `and.' This sign of abbreviation has come down to us sanctioned by age and common use for perhaps centuries, and is used even at this day in written instruments, in daily transactions, with such frequency that it may be said to be a part of our language when it is written." It is better that, in writing indictments, all words be written in full, but we see no sufficient reason for holding the indictment vicious because of this matter.

It is contended that the original indictment and forged order are variant from the indictment and order as copied into the transcript. There is what purports to be the original indictment and forged order attached to the transcript. These two papers are in no way authenticated as such original papers, nor are they certified to by the clerk of the trial court as such papers. "Where original papers are ordered to be sent with the transcript, they should be forwarded with the transcript, and their identity verified by proper certificate of the clerk, and separate from the transcript." Carroll...