Powell v. Com.
| Decision Date | 20 September 1888 |
| Citation | 9 S.W. 245 |
| Parties | POWELL v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Daviess county.
W. T. Ellis and E. W. Hines, for appellant.
P. W. Hardin, for appellee.
The appellant was indicted for forgery in the Daviess circuit court, and convicted. The offense, as is alleged, was committed by the accused in signing the name of one John Hildebrand across the back of a check, purporting to have been drawn by one T. J. Monarch, in favor of John Hildebrand, on the Citizens' bank of Ownesboro, without the authority of Hildebrand, and for the purpose of defrauding, etc. There must be some mistake in the bill of evidence as to the name of the party whose signature had been forged by the accused. We find no evidence that any such man as John Hildebrand ever existed but that found in the testimony of the accused. It is not shown that the signature of Hildebrand is not genuine, and in fact no one ever saw Hildebrand, and of course could not know his handwriting, but the appellant, who swears the check was given him in payment of money due him by Hildebrand, and won at a game of cards. There is some proof conducing to show that the name of Monarch was a forgery; but the indictment charges that it was Hildebrand's name that was written across the check without authority. There is an entire absence of proof to sustain the charge contained in the indictment, and the judgment of conviction must therefore be reversed, and is now remanded, with directions to grant a new trial, and for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santolini v. State
... ... Cr. Proc., 3d Ed., 400; 2 Bish. Cr. L., ... 6th Ed., 524, 533, 538, 341, 545; 1 Whart. Cr. L., 9th Ed., ... 739; Haslip v. State, 10 Neb. 590; Com v ... Dallinger, 118 Mass. 439; Rembert v. State, 53 ... Ala. 467.) There is no evidence that the name signed to the ... check bore any such ... Harrison, 8 Barb. 560; Hendricks v. State, 26 ... Tex. App., 176; Rood v. State, 5 Neb., 174; ... Raymond v. People, 2 Colo. App., 329; Powell v ... Com. (Ky.), 9 S.W. 245; Humbard v. State ... (Tex.), 17 S.W. 126; Neiderluck v. State ... (Tex.), 17 S.W. 467; 3 Greenleaf, 108; Rapalje ... ...
-
Haupt v. State
...for the indictment to describe the writing with extreme minuteness, yet, when so described, strict proof must be had, cites Powell v. Com. (Ky.) 9 S. W. 245; State v. Smith, 31 Mo. 120; Hess v. State, 5 Ham. (Ohio) 5; State v. Fleshman, 40 W. Va. 726, 22 S. E. 309; Com. v. Wilson, 2 Gray, 7......
-
Haupt v. State
... ... averred (section 407, note 8); that no allegation of a ... revenue stamp is essential in an indictment for forgery. In ... the case of Com. v. Taylor, 5 Cush. 609, the supreme ... judicial court of Massachusetts held that the omission to ... recite figures, letters, and numbers does ... writing with extreme minuteness, yet, when so described, ... strict proof must be had, cites Powell v. Com. (Ky.) ... 9 S.W. 245; State v. Smith, 31 Mo. 120; Hess v ... State, 5 Ham. (Ohio) 5; State v. Fleshman, 40 W.Va ... 726, 22 S.E. 309; ... ...