People v. Marion
| Citation | 28 Mich. 255 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Decision Date | 28 October 1873 |
| Parties | The People v. Nazaire Marion |
Heard October 22, 1873
Exceptions from the Recorder's Court of Detroit.
Information for forgery. Conviction set aside and new trial ordered.
Verdict set aside and a new trial awarded.
Byron D. Ball, Attorney General, S. Larned and Henry M. Cheever for the People.
Alfred Russell and J. Logan Chipman, for the respondent.
The plaintiff in error (defendant below) was tried and convicted in the recorder's court of the city of Detroit upon an information charging him with feloniously uttering and publishing as true, a false, forged, and counterfeited letter of attorney, knowing the same to be false, forged, and counterfeited, with the intent to injure and defraud, etc.
The forged letter of attorney is described in the information in the following words: "A certain false, forged, and counterfeited letter of attorney, which said false, forged, and counterfeited letter of attorney purported to be executed by Felix Mette, Charles Mette, Adeline Clark, and Anna McLelland to one Joseph Trombley, for the purpose of authorizing said Trombley to sell certain lands in the township of Springwells, county of Wayne, and State of Michigan, and which false, forged and counterfeited letter of attorney also purported to be acknowledged before one Aaron Castello, a notary public, of Almeda county, California, and purported further to have the signature of said Aaron Castello attested by certificate of Louis B. Smith, clerk of the district court of said county, which said signatures of said Aaron Castello and Louis B. Smith were false, forged, and counterfeited."
Evidence was given tending to show that the names of Felix Mette, Charles Mette, Adeline Clark, and Anna McLelland were forged, but none tending to show that those of Castello and Smith, or either of them, were forged.
According to the precedents and authorities it was not absolutely necessary in this information, to set out particularly in what the forgery consisted, though it is usual to set this out in at least one count of the indictment; and as an instrument may be forged in a great variety of ways, and any mere alteration which would (if true) change its legal effect will constitute a forgery of the instrument as a whole, fairness to the accused would seem to require such statement, that he may have notice of what is intended to be proved against him, so that he may prepare to meet the charge; the practice of omitting such statement, is not therefore to be commended.
But if it was not necessary to set out in what the forgery was claimed to consist, it was at least necessary, when the prosecutor did undertake to set it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Maki
...14 R. C. L. 187; 31 C. J. 709-713; People v. Hamilton, 71 Mich. 340, 38 N. W. 921. See, also, Enders v. People, 20 Mich. 233;People v. Marion, 28 Mich. 255;Brown v. People, 29 Mich. 233;People v. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431;Chapman v. People, 39 Mich. 357; Joyce on Indictments, § 459 et seq.; Un......
-
Bennett v. State
...particular acts in which the forgery consisted. State v. Maas, 37 La.Ann. 292; People v. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69, 23 N.W. 594; People v. Marion, 28 Mich. 255. this is according to the weight of authority. But it is said in People v. Marion, 28 Mich. 255, that the omitting to do so is a pra......
-
State v. Topham
...offense." Many cases in support of this doctrine are there cited. It is also elementary and, as stated by the Michigan court in People v. Marion, 28 Mich. 255, approved and by this court in State v. McKenna, 24 Utah 317, 67 P. 815, that, "as every man is presumed to be innocent until proved......
-
Bennett v. State
...particular acts in which the forgery consisted. State v. Maas, 37 La. Ann. 292; People v. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69, 23 N. W. 594; People v. Marion, 28 Mich. 255. And this is according to the weight of authority. But it is said in People v. Marion, 28 Mich. 255, that the omitting to do so is......