Pierce v. State

• Decision Date: 02 February 1898
• Citation: 44 S.W. 292
• Parties: PIERCE v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

44 S.W. 292

PIERCE v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 2, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Victoria county; James C. Wilson, Judge.

A. P. Pierce was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Reversed and dismissed.

Mann Trice, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of forgery, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years; hence this appeal.

A number of bills of exception were reserved to the failure of the court to charge certain phases of the case insisted on by appellant. A motion was also made in arrest of judgment, which was overruled, and a bill of exceptions reserved to this action of the court. As all of these exceptions hinge on the indictment, we will state the charging part of the same, to wit: That the said A. P. Pierce "did then and there, without lawful authority, willfully and fraudulently make a false instrument in writing purporting to be the act of another, to wit, the act of H. J. Pearce, which said false instrument was a United States postal money order, a copy of which cannot be given herein, for the reason that the same was duly forwarded, as required by law, by the postmaster of Victoria, Texas, to the office of the postmaster general of the United States, at Washington, District of Columbia, and is not now within the state of Texas, but which was a postal money order for the sum of forty dollars, procured at Rockdale, Texas, dated December 12, 1896, payable to H. J. Pearce at Victoria, Texas, the number of said order being 8,898, a better description of which cannot be given; which said money order the said A. P. Pierce, representing himself to be the person to whom the same was payable, to wit, H. J. Pearce, signed the name of the said H. J. Pearce thereunto, without lawful authority, and with intent to defraud, and thereby procured the payment of the said order to him, the said A. P. Pierce, against the peace and dignity of the state." With reference to the charges asked, the insistence is that the indictment alleges that the post office money order was made by H. J. Pearce, whereas said order was not made at all by him, but was made by the postmaster at Rockdale, and the forgery committed by appellant, if any, was in forging the name of H. J. Pearce to a receipt for the money due on said order. The motion in arrest of judgment alleged that "the indictment is vague, indefinite, and uncertain, and fails to put defendant upon notice as to what charge he is called upon to answer. The indictment charges that defendant made a post office...