Shelton v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1905 |
| Citation | 143 Ala. 98,39 So. 377 |
| Parties | SHELTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; Daniel Partridge, Judge.
Spencer Shelton was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Reversed.
The appellant, Spencer Shelton, was tried and convicted of forgery of a promissory note. The indictment contained two counts; the first charging the forgery of the name of one Thad Chestnut to the note, which was set out verbatim in the indictment, and showed the name of Chestnut as signed at the lower right hand of the paper, and the name of the defendant signed at the lower left hand thereof. The second count also set out the note, and charged that the defendant "did with intent to injure or defraud, utter and publish as true a falsely made or forged instrument in writing, in words and figures as follows," etc. There were demurrers to the indictment, but it is not necessary to set out the grounds thereof. Upon the trial, Thad Chestnut, whose name was alleged to have been forged to the note, testified for the state that he did not sign the note and did not authorize any one to sign it for him, and that he could not write his name. His testimony was corroborated by another witness. Clem White, the payee in the paper, testified that Chestnut owed him the amount of the note, and that he and defendant saw him about it, and he agreed to give the note; that he had another party to fill it out, and he (witness) signed Chestnut's name thereto, as Chestnut could not write, and Chestnut having his hand on the pencil as witness wrote the name; that defendant wrote his name as a witness to the signature, and had no interest in the debt or paper. He was corroborated by the defendant, as a witness in his own behalf. The court refused to give the following charges, requested in writing by the defendant:
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The instrument set out in both counts of the indictment is a promissory note, purporting to impose a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coker v. State
...and a conviction for crime result, when none had been proven. This was doubtless in the minds of the court when considering Shelton v. State, 143 Ala. 98, 39 So. 377, in the present Chief Justice concurred, and in Cagle's Case, 151 Ala. 84, 44 So. 381. The judgment is reversed, and the caus......
-
Brown v. Bailey
... ... the Court erred in the exclusion of [215 S.C. 183] certain ... testimony and made improper comments in the presence of the ... jury. State v. Simmons, 209 S.C. 531, 41 S.E.2d 217 ... As shown in that opinion, the defense of Simmons was that he ... directed the fabrication of these ... binding obligation or with the intent to injure or defraud ... the maker, he is guilty of forgery. Shelton v ... State, 143 Ala. 98, 39 So. 377 ... When ... the foregoing principles are applied to the admitted facts of ... the ... ...
-
Duin v. State
...support a conviction the court erred in refusing either of these charges. Cagle v. State, 151 Ala. 84, 44 So. 381. From Shelton v. State, 143 Ala. 98, 39 So. 377 (often yoked with Cagle, supra), we also '* * * As it (count 2 of the indictment) charged no offense, the defendant in his reques......
-
Fuller v. State
...and judgment of conviction is based is not complete on its face. It is undated and does not show who was dealing with whom. Shelton v. State, 143 Ala. 98, 39 So. 377 is inapposite. The instrument alleged to be forged in that case was a promissory note. The writing alleged to have been forge......