Phillips v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1855 |
| Docket Number | No. 79.,79. |
| Citation | 17 Ga. 459 |
| Parties | Charles Phillips, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Forgery, in Bibb Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers, November Term, 1854.
This was an indictment for the forgery of a promissory note for Twenty Dollars, delivered to Henry Tindall by the prisoner, signed with the name of "H. C. Neith & Son, No. 27, Bay street, Savannah."
The evidence showed that the prisoner had previously borrowed the sum of Five and Twelve Dollars from Tindall, representing his name to be Neith, and claiming to be one of the said firm of H. C. Neith & Son. The note was given in discharge of these two sums, adding three dollars "for the use of the money." Prisoner had registered his name at the hotel as Charles Phillips, before the giving the note.
It appeared that there was no such firm in Savannah as "H. C. Neith & Son."
Counsel for prisoner requested the Court to charge, that it was necessary to prove that the note was actually made and signed by the prisoner, and that the delivery of the note by him is not conclusive proof that he made and signed it. And also, that it must be proven that the fictitious name was assumed for the purpose of defrauding Tindall; and that if it appeared that he had used the name before the commission of the forgery, it was evidence from which they might infer that it was not assumed for that purpose. On the first and fourth grounds of request the Court charged as requested, but declined giving the second and third.
This is assigned as error.
Lamar & Lochrane, for plaintiff in error.
Whittle, for the State.
By the Court.—Lumpkin, J., delivering the opinion.
There were four requests made of the Court by Coun-sel for the prisoner, when the evidence was closed in the case, viz.: First, That it was necessary to prove that the note was made by the prisoner.
Second, That it was made by him in a fictitious name, with intent to defraud Tindall, the payee.
Third, That it must appear, from the evidence, that the fictitious name was used by prisoner with a view to perpetrate the particular fraud alleged to have been committed; and that if it was committed—that is, if the money was obtained before the fictitious name was used, the Jury might infer that it was not used to perpetrate a fraud.
Fourth, That the mere delivery of a note is not conclusive evidence of its execution.
The Court gave the Jury the first and fourth requests as desired, but declined giving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mills v. State
...for other reasons, public policy may require it. The law makes the act the crime and infers a criminal intent from the act itself. Philips v. State, 17 Ga. 459; Commonwealth Hersey, 2 Allen (Mass.) 173, text 180; McNamee v. People, 31 Mich. 473. Mr. Clark, in his late work, Elementary Law, ......
-
State v. Blue
......Rep. 408; Dupree. v. State, 73 Am. Dec. 422. . . He. admits every material allegation charged in the information,. excepting that he denies any fraudulent or criminal intent. But from the doing of this act the law presumes such intent. State v. Nolan, (Mo.), 19 S.W. 717; Phillips v. State, 17 Ga. 459; State v. Hurds, 19 Neb. 317. . . The. intent which is mentioned in the text books of criminal law. as essential to constitute a crime is not necessarily an evil. or wrongful intent beyond that which is involved in the. prohibited act. Whatever one voluntarily ......
-
State v. Hards
...... presumed and need not be alleged. The intent is nothing more. than the result which the law draws from the act, and. requires no proof beyond that which the act itself implies. Com. v. Hersey, 2 Allen 180, and cases there cited. To this point also see Phillips v. The State, 17 Ga. 459. In that case the provisions of the statutes were as. follows: "Any person who shall draw or make a bill of. exchange, due bill, or promissory note, or indorse or accept. the same in a fictitious name,. [27 N.W. 142] . shall be guilty of forgery, and on conviction ......
-
Gibson v. State
...was uttered as true, or with intent to defraud. In support of the latter position, the state's counsel relied on the ruling in Phillips v. State, 17 Ga. 459, where it was held that an indictment under the statute, now embodied in the Code at section 4453, providing for the punishment of for......