Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 27 October 1886 |
| Citation | 29 N.W. 923,20 Neb. 284 |
| Parties | THOMAS SMITH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before NEVILLE J.
N. J Burnham, for plaintiff in error, cited: 1 Whart. Crim. Law 711. Commonwealth v. Searle, 2 Binney, 332. People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509. United States v. Carter, 2 Cranch C. C., 243. United States v Mitchell, 1 Bald., 366.
William Leese, attorney general, for the state.
An information was presented to the district court by the district attorney, containing two counts, one for the crime of forging a check for $ 250 on the United States National Bank of Omaha, the other for uttering and publishing as genuine the same check. Upon trial he was found guilty as charged in the second count of the information, and sentenced accordingly. He now prosecutes error to this court.
The principal, and in fact the only contention of plaintiff in error is, that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence. The facts as testified to by the prosecuting witness were substantially as follows:
Plaintiff met Bromley, the prosecuting witness, in the city of Omaha and asked him were he was going, and was informed by the witness that he was going to St. Louis. Plaintiff said that was where he was going, that he lived three miles from that city, and suggested that they would go together. After some further conversation of a general nature they separated, but before doing so, plaintiff invited Bromley into a saloon to have a cigar, saying he did not drink. The cigar was accepted and Bromley went to his hotel to get his satchel, saying in response to a question from plaintiff, that he would be gone about half an hour. Plaintiff said he would wait until the return of Bromley. Bromley did not get his satchel, but went to a bridge-builder's office near the depot, where he hired to work at bridge building, that being his trade. After leaving the depot he started to purchase some necessary tools with which to carry on his work, and on the way he took occasion to examine as to the amount of money he had. About the time he was through with this, some one touched his shoulder to attract his attention, and upon looking round he saw plaintiff, who seems to have gone by the name of Thompson. Plaintiff asked Bromley where he was going, and was informed that he was going "up town." Plaintiff remarked that he was going in the same direction, and would accompany Bromley. After going a short distance plaintiff asked Bromley if he would not like to go to St. Louis and work for him taking care of his large 500-acre farm and the stock thereon, which was represented to be quite an establishment, etc., and proffering to provide a pass for Bromley to St. Louis. Bromley finally consented to go for the price offered. About this time they met another person, who called to plaintiff, saying: "Hello, Thompson." Plaintiff looked around and said: "Hold on, Bromley, there is the freight agent now; that is the man I am looking for. The person came up and was introduced to Bromley as Mr. Turner, the freight agent. Turner came up, shook hands with the witness, and informed plaintiff that "that freight bill" of his was $ 65. Plaintiff said he knew it, and put his hand in his pocket, taking out an envelope, opened it, saying he had a five hundred dollar bill, which he presented to Turner for him to change. Turner said he had not money enough to change the bill, when plaintiff returned it and presented the check in question, saying: "Here is something smaller, a two hundred and fifty dollar check. " Turner produced some money, saying he had not a sufficient amount of change, but that the check was as good as so much gold. The check was...
To continue reading
Request your trial