Murphy v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1898 |
| Citation | 23 So. 719,118 Ala. 137 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Lee county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.
John F Murphy was indicted for forgery of a decree of the chancery court of Russell county, granting a divorce to M. V. Askew in the case of M. V. Askew against Thomas Askew. He was convicted of forgery in the third degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Barnes & Duke, for appellants.
Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is not disputed by counsel for defendant that the paper alleged to have been forged is not within the statutory definition of forgery in the first or second degree, and that if any offense was committed, it is forgery in the third degree under section 4726 of the Code of 1896. The contention is that to be forgery under this section, it must be forgery at common law, and that defendant cannot be found guilty thereof under the evidence. This court has approved as comprehensive and precise the definition of forgery given by Mr. Bishop: "Forgery is the false making, or materially altering, with intent to defraud of any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy, or the foundation of a legal liability." 2 Bish. Cr. Law, § 495. "The principal point of consideration is," the author observes, "that the instrument must either appear on its face to be, or be in fact, one which, if true, would possess some legal validity; or, in other words, must be legally capable of effecting a fraud." Id. § 503; Rembert v. State, 53 Ala. 467; Dixon v. State, 81 Ala. 61, 1 So. 69.
In this case, as the evidence tends to show, the defendant desired to marry M. V. Askew, a married woman, who told him she was already married, and the wife of Thomas Askew, but that there was then pending a suit for divorce between her husband and herself in Lee county, and that as soon as she was divorced from him, she would marry him; that he told her he could get a divorce for her in Russell county, in 30 or 40 days, and some time afterwards, the defendant gave her the paper set out in the indictment and bill of exceptions, purporting to be a divorce granted in her favor in Russell county chancery court, and told her it was her divorce, and thereupon she married him. It also tended to show, that no such case as that of M. V. Askew v. Thomas Askew, in which said divorce purported to be granted, existed at any time in said chancery court; that there had been a divorce suit in that court, of John W. Hodge v. Emma Hodge, and that a decree of divorce had been rendered in that case, which was partly printed and partly written; that the paper offered in evidence was a copy of the decree in that case, and that the written parts which are italicized or underlined were in the handwriting of the register of said court, except the words "M. V. Askew v. Thomas Askew," wherever they occur, and the figure 4 in 1894, which words and figure had been changed by some other person than the register; that the names of John W. Hodge and Emma Hodge, as they were originally written and appeared in said paper, had been since partially erased, and the names of M. V. Askew and Thomas Askew written in lieu thereof. The evidence also without conflict showed that defendant changed the paper in this respect, and in the matter of the year of its date, and that the paper offered in evidence was the paper that had been so changed.
It thus appears that the defendant made and uttered the paper alleged to have been forged; that he did it with the intent of deceive and defraud said M. V. Askew, and that he did deceive and defraud her thereby into contracting marriage with him, while she was yet the wife of another man. Moreover, it needs no argument to show that the paper was such as, if it had been genuine, appeared to be of legal efficacy. On its face it was as complete a decree of divorce of said M. V. Askew from her husband as could well have been written, and purported to have been duly signed by the chancellor of the district. There was no error, therefore, in admitting said paper in evidence, and in refusing the general charge for the defendant.
When the register had testified to the original copy of the divorce that had been granted in the case of Hodge v. Hodge and the alteration of the same, as above stated, the solicitor asked him: "When it was written 'John W. Hodge v. Emma Hodge,' what did the paper purport to be?" and he answered, "It purported to be a copy of the decree in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. State
... ... of preventing the occurrence of such things. This evidence ... was uncontradicted, and the exclusion of the same testimony ... by the witness Morrison, if error, would not be injurious or ... prejudicial. Code 1907, § 6264; Murphy v. State, 118 ... Ala. 137, 23 So. 719; Crain v. State, 166 Ala. 1, 52 ... So. 31; Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14, 50 So. 194; ... Morris v. State (Sup.) 39 So. 608, 611; McGuire ... v. State, 58 So. 60 ... The ... point is made by counsel for defendant that the court's ... refusal ... ...
-
Earnest v. State
...insurance policy was held to be the subject of forgery in the third degree. Forgery of a divorce decree is third degree, Murphy v. State, 118 Ala. 137, 23 So. 719; as is falsely obtaining a blind man's signature to a waiver and answer, Warren v. State, 32 Ala.App. 302, 25 So.2d Title 14, § ......
-
Wingate v. State
...therefore committed no error which was of injury to defendant in refusing to allow the defendant to answer the question. Murphy v. State, 118 Ala. 142, 23 So. 719. court was not guilty of error in allowing the state to prove by the defendant, for the purpose of casting discredit on his test......
-
McGuire v. State
...the court's action in that regard, if error, is such error as defined by section 6264 of the Code of 1907, and hence harmless. See Murphy v. State, supra; Crain State, 166 Ala. 1, 52 So. 31; Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14, 50 So. 194; Morris v. State, 39 So. 608, 611. The defendant discusse......