Porter v. State
Decision Date | 23 January 1860 |
Citation | 15 Ind. 433 |
Parties | Porter v. The State |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Warren Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
S. A. Huff, J. H. Brown and J. Park, for appellant.
J. E. McDonald, Attorney General, and A. L. Roache, for the State.
The appellant was indicted in the Court below for forgery, in uttering and putting away certain counterfeit bank notes, purporting to be the notes of the Winsted Bank, of the State of Connecticut, with intent to have the same put in circulation. Trial, conviction, and judgment; a new trial being denied.
Before entering upon the trial, the defendant, on affidavit filed, moved for a continuance; but his motion was overruled.
The affidavit is unusually long, and we deem it unnecessary to set it out, or discuss it at length. An opinion as to its sufficiency would be of no practical use as a precedent; hence, as there is another point in the case that is fatal to the judgment, we proceed at once to it.
The notes, as set out in the indictment, were payable to Those offered in evidence, were payable to "E. Seymour, or bearer." The defendant objected to the introduction of the notes thus offered in evidence, because of the variance; but the objection was overruled, and he excepted. This was one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial. The variance between the name of E. lymour, and that of E. Seymour, we think, was fatal. Zellers v. The State, 7 Ind. 659; vide, also, on this point, Commonwealth v. Stevens, 1 Mass. 203; Commonwealth v. Wilson, 2 Gray 70.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. The clerk is ordered to certify directions to the superintendent of the State prison to return the appellant, William Porter, to the jailor of Warren county, to abide the order of the Court below.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Madison v. State, 29188
......State, 1875, 50 Ind. 178 (keeping gaming house); McLaughlin v. State, 1873, 45 Ind. 338, 347 (intoxicating liquor); Wertz v. State, 1873, 42 Ind. 161 (nuisance); Ball v. State, 1866, 26 Ind. 155 (forcible entry and detainer); Widner v. State, 1865, 25 Ind. 234 (larceny); Porter v. State, 1860, 15 Ind. 433 (forgery); Swinney v. State, 1860, 14 Ind. 315 (usury); Whitney v. State, 1858, 10 Ind. 404 (sale of lottery tickets); Wilkinson v. State, 1858, 10 Ind. 372 (forgery); Wilcox v. State, 1845, 7 Blackf. 456 (gaming); Tate v. State, 1839, 5 Blackf. 174 (betting on ......
-
May v. State
......Griffie,. 123 S.W. 878, 118 Mo. 188; State v. Griffie, 123. S.W. 878; Brown v. Marqueze & Co., 30 Tex. 77. . . In the. light of the above authorities, we say that. "Bowels" and "Bowles" are not idem. sonans. State v. Fay, 65 Mo. 490; Brown v. People, 66 Ill. 344; Porter v. State, 15 Ind. 433; McClellan v. State, 23 Tex.App. 401, 5 S.W. 248. . . In the. above case there was in the names used, a difference in. syllables, just as in the case at bar. That the indictment by. proper allegations should explain the meaning of names when. the name signed ......
-
Thomas v. State
...a variance in a prosecution for forgery would be fatal under the strict rules applied in such cases. Whart. Crim. Ev. § 114 a; Porter v. State, 15 Ind. 433;Zellers v. State, 7 Ind. 659;Smith v. State, 33 Ind. 159;Sharley v. State, 54 Ind. 168;Rooker v. State, 65 Ind. 86;Abbott v. State, 59 ......
-
Thomas v. The State
...... whether this difference constitutes such a variance as that. the judgment must be overthrown on account of it. Such a. variance in a prosecution for forgery would be fatal, under. the strict rules applied in such cases. Whart. Crim. Ev.,. section 114 a; Porter v. State, 15. Ind. 433; Zellers v. State, 7 Ind. 659;. Smith v. State, 33 Ind. 159;. Sharley v. State, 54 Ind. 168;. Rooker v. State, 65 Ind. 86;. Abbott v. State, 59 Ind. 70; State . v. Pease, 74 Ind. 263. . . The. strict rules applied in ......