People v. De France

• Decision Date: 02 April 1895
• Citation: 62 N.W. 709,104 Mich. 563
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. DE FRANCE.

62 N.W. 709

104 Mich. 563

PEOPLE v. DE FRANCE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 2, 1895

Error to circuit court, Kalamazoo county; George M. Buck, Judge.

Stonewall J. De France was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Affirmed.

Edwin F. Conely and Orla B. Taylor (E. M. Irish and A. J. Sawyer, of counsel), for appellant.

Alfred S. Frost, Pros. Atty. (F. E. Knappen, of counsel), for the People.

MONTGOMERY J.

The respondent was charged, in the circuit court for the county of Kalamazoo, with having, on the 23d day of November, 1891 uttered a forged draft, purporting to have been drawn by the Pontiac National Bank, of Pontiac, Mich., on the Merchants' National Bank of New York, for the sum of $12,500, and upon which he is claimed to have received from the First National Bank of Kalamazoo an advancement of $5,000. The testimony on behalf of the people tended to show that the respondent came to Kalamazoo on the 10th of November, and registered at the Burdick House under the name of Louis Forrest; that he gave out that he was an agent of the Standard Oil Company, and desired to purchase some land in the vicinity of the city for that company; that he visited the bank in question on two or three occasions, and was introduced to the president by one Hammond, with whom he had become acquainted in his efforts to find land suitable for his alleged purposes. On Monday morning, the 23d, he presented the draft in question, and received $5,000 in currency, and was credited on the books of the bank with the balance. He immediately left the city, and was not discovered to the bank officials until October 2, 1893, when he was arrested in Detroit, where he had been living since the time of the alleged offense. The defense consisted of a denial of the identity of respondent with the man Forrest, who committed the offense, and the chief question of fact was that of the identity of the respondent. The defendant offered testimony tending to show that during the time the man known as Forrest was in Kalamazoo, he, the respondent, was in the city of Detroit constantly. Among other witnesses called for the purpose of proving this fact respondent called as witnesses Thadeas Galvin, John Galvin, and James Galvin, who testified that on the 21st of November, 1891 they entered into a contract with respondent, which contract was produced and introduced in evidence, and purported to have been executed on that date, and to have been signed by the Galvins and by defendant. Respondent also called as a witness William Peabody, who testified that on the 23d of November, 1891, he borrowed $300 in money of respondent, and executed his promissory note for the amount; that the note was afterwards paid, on the 11th of April, 1892, to Mr. De France personally, at the house of the witness, and that De France receipted for it on the back. This note purported to have been signed by Peabody, and was indorsed on the back "Paid, April 11, '92. S. J. De France." It appeared by the testimony of the people that at the time the man known as Forrest appeared at Kalamazoo his teeth presented a different appearance than those of the respondent subsequently presented; that the two front incisors were separated distinctly, and that now this peculiarity does not appear. The people called as a witness Charles H. Land, a dentist, who testified that between the 30th of November and the 4th of December, 1891, he inserted three false teeth in the place of the two incisors for the respondent. The prosecution called as a witness one Cornelius W. Britt, an attorney, who testified that he prepared the contract purporting to have been executed by De France and the Galvins on the 21st of November, 1891, after respondent's arrest and imprisonment, and by the respondent's direction. They also called two witnesses whose testimony tended to show that the indorsement purporting to have been made on the back of the note of William Peabody on April 11, 1892, and purporting to have been signed by De France, could not have been made at that time, as he, De France, was at that date, and for some days prior, in St. Paul, Minn. This statement of facts is sufficient to show the relevancy of the questions raised in the brief of counsel which we deem it necessary to discuss.

Respondent's counsel contend that error was committed in getting before the jury the claim that respondent had been guilty of similar offenses to those charged, and occurring at a later date. The prosecution called as a witness F. W. Anderson, of St. Paul Minn., who testified that he was president of the St. Paul National Bank, and first met the respondent at St. Paul on April 11, 1892. He was then asked under what circumstances he met the respondent at that time, and counsel for the respondent objected, on the ground that it related to a separate and distinct offense. The jury was excluded during the discussion, and the court ruled the testimony inadmissible. The court did not depart from this ruling during the trial, but it is claimed that counsel, by putting questions to witnesses, sought to convey the impression to the jury that the respondent had been guilty of offenses at other times and places. This subject will be referred to later on. The prosecution, in rebuttal, called as a witness William B. Geery, who testified that on the 11th of April, 1892, the respondent was in St. Paul, and was seen by the witness in the St. Paul National Bank. This testimony was corroborated by F. W. Anderson, the president of the bank, and on the cross-examination of these witnesses facts were elicited which tended to show that he was guilty of some transaction which occasioned an attempt on the part of the bank officials to procure his arrest. It is strenuously insisted that this line of testimony was incompetent. Counsel invoke the rule that it is not competent to impeach a witness by contradicting him upon immaterial points, and it is said that the fact of the Peabody note having been indorsed as paid on the 11th of April was an immaterial or collateral fact, and that it was incompetent to dispute the testimony of the witness upon this point. The court received the testimony as bearing upon the credibility of the testimony of the witness Peabody, and in this we think no error was committed. Counsel contend that the falsity of the indorsement could not affect the authenticity of the note itself, and say, "Suppose the date of the indorsement were false for some reason, would the contents of the note be false for that reason also?" The witness Peabody, as before stated, produced this note for the purpose of corroborating his own testimony, and his testimony as a whole was that he borrowed, on the 23d of November, 1891, $300 of respondent; that he gave this note; that the note was paid on the 11th of April, 1892, to Mr. De France personally, at his house in Detroit, and that De France receipted it on the back. This note was supposed to represent the transaction between the parties, the whole transaction, and nothing else. The witness told a connected story supported by one document, which was either true or false, and we cannot understand how it can be said that testimony showing that this instrument, which was produced for the purpose of corroborating his testimony, was false in one particular, might not be and ought not to be weighed by the jury in determining the question of whether the whole instrument was prepared for the especial occasion, and for the purpose of corroborating his testimony. Not only was the testimony competent upon this question, but to our mind it was persuasive evidence for this purpose, and it is not surprising that it should have had the effect of discrediting the witness with the jury. The court distinctly limited the application of this testimony by instructing the jury as follows: "Whether or not the respondent was in St. Paul on April 11, 1892, has no tendency to prove that he was in Kalamazoo in November, from the...