Polk v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 1899 |
| Citation | 51 S.W. 909 |
| Parties | POLK v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, San Augustine county; Tom C. Davis, Judge.
Dave Polk was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Reversed.
Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of forgery for altering a genuine instrument, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary. The genuine instrument is as follows: This was altered by Dave Polk by the addition of the following: "to bits of shaggars one pond of ducco one dress patton,"—so as to make the instrument read, when altered, as follows: Motion in arrest of judgment was made because the indictment does not show on its face that an offense against the law has been committed by defendant. We are of opinion that this motion should have been sustained. There are no explanatory or innuendo averments in the indictment. Who the "Mr. Lynch" was is not stated; nor what the terms, "to bits of shaggars," "one pond of ducco," and "one dress patton," mean. These matters should have been explained by proper averments. We observe that when the completed instrument, after being altered, is set out, we find the expressions, "to bits of shagger one pound of dacco one dress patton," in place of the terms, "to bits of shaggars one pond of ducco one dress patton," alleged to be added. So there is a difference between the addition as alleged to have been made to the instrument and that set out in the instrument itself after having been altered. The expression "shaggars," set out in one part of the indictment, is written "shagger" in another part; the word "pond" is written in the second place "pound"; and "ducco" in one place is made to read "dacco" in another. But, if these variances are of small import, still there are no innuendo averments explaining what was meant by the additions to the original order. For want of proper explanatory and innuendo averments, we believe the indictment does not set out a case of forgery. The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. State
...name, we cite: Section 327, Bishop on Statutory Crimes (3 Ed.); Crawford v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 344, 50 S.W. 378; Polk v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 668, 51 S.W. 909; Cyc. 1405; Russell v. State, 40 So. 625; Macguire v. State, 91 Miss. 151. We respectfully submit that for the reasons above giv......
-
The State v. Harroun
...support the judgment, and the motion in arrest should have been sustained. State v. Fay, 65 Mo. 490; State v. Chinn, 142 Mo. 507; Polk v. State, 51 S.W. 909; Bynum v. State, 17 Oh. St. 143; Carberry State, 11 Oh. St. 414; Joiner v. State, 80 S.W. 531; Mayer v. State, 85 S.W. 802; Thulemeyer......
-
Pospishel v. State
...44 S. W. 827; Colter v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 165, 49 S. W. 379; Crawford v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 344, 50 S. W. 378; Polk v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 668, 51 S. W. 909. Many other authorities involving instruments of various kinds will be found collated under paragraph 5, § 1398, Branch's Ann......
-
Keagan v. State, s. 66939
...thereby,' citing Colter v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 165, 49 S.W. 379; Crawford v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 344, 345, 50 S.W. 378; Polk v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 668, 51 S.W. 909; Lynch v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 209, 211, 53 S.W. 693; Lamb v. State, 67 Tex.Cr.R. 474, 148 S.W. In 19 Tex.Jur. p. 852, we find ......