Sims v. State

• Decision Date: 21 April 1908
• Citation: 155 Ala. 96,46 So. 493
• Parties: SIMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

46 So. 493

155 Ala. 96

SIMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 21, 1908

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Walker County; T. L. Sowell Judge.

Will D Sims was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The indictment is in the following language: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment Will D. Sims, with intent to injure and defraud did alter a receipt for the payment of money which receipt is substantially as follows: 'Beat No. 4. No. 1,101. Feb. 24 1903. Received of H. V. Nix the sum of one & 50/100 dollars in full amount of taxes due the state of Alabama and county of Walker, tax year 1902. Real Estate. State tax, 55; special state tax soldiers, 10; special state tax school, 10; county tax, 50; special county tax bridge and C. H., 25; special county tax school. Personal Property. State tax, special state tax soldiers, special state tax school, county tax special county tax bridges and C. H., special county tax school. Assessor's demand notice, .50; board of equalization, subp nas, 25¢; notice, 25¢; total, $1.50; interest, _______ days @ 8%; collector's demand notice, 50¢; total. W. Richardson, Tax Collector.' And the grand jury aver that said alteration consisted in inserting therein after the words 'Assessor's demand notice, 50¢,' the words 'poll tax, $1.50,' and inserting therein after the word "total," where it last appears therein, the figures '$3.00,' against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama."

The following demurrers were interposed: "(1) The indictment charges no offense, in that the paper set out in said indictment is not such a paper as the statute makes the subject of forgery. (2) The paper set out in the indictment would not create any pecuniary demand or obligation. (3) The paper or receipt set out in the indictment is not one by which a pecuniary demand or obligation purports to be created, and the false making of which with intent to defraud is forgery. (4) The indictment, while setting out the alleged altered receipt, does not set out any writing by which on its face any person could be injured or defrauded, and no extrinsic facts are averred showing such intent to injure or defraud. (5) The paper set out in the indictment fails to show on its face the capacity to deceive or defraud, or to create or to discharge a pecuniary liability."

The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

D....