State v. Bibb
| Decision Date | 31 October 1878 |
| Citation | 68 Mo. 286 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Appellant, v. BIBB. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.--HON. A. J. SEAY, Judge.
Indictment for forgery. The indictment was in the following words:
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) SS. County of Franklin,
)
In the circuit court of said county of Franklin, November term, 1875:
The grand jurors of the State of Missouri, now here in court duly empanneled, charged and sworn to inquire within and for the county of Franklin aforesaid, upon their oath do present that William R. Bibb, late of the county of Franklin aforesaid, at and in the county of Franklin, and State of Missouri, on the 25th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1872, feloniously, falsely and fraudulently did make, forge and counterfeit a certain receipt, purporting to be the receipt of one Charles W. Jeffries, as administrator of one William D. Jeffries, deceased, which said forged receipt is as follows, to-wit:
“Franklin county, Missouri, November 25th, 1872. Received of William R. Bibb, former constable of Boles township, the sum of $193.70, being the amount in full of judgments and interest to date, in the following suits, judgment being rendered in the court of Julius Kahrmann, a justice of the peace of Boles township. William D. Jeffries' estate v. A. F. Stiles and Sam. Groff; William D. Jeffries' estate v. Jas. N. Hogan and D. S. Robertson; William D. Jeffries' estate v. Jas. II. Leathers and A. Leathers; William D. Jeffries' estate v. Thomas Watson. The above being subject to Squire Kahrmann's books.
C. W. JEFFRIES,
Admr. of W. D. Jeffries' estate, deceased.”
And that he, the said William R. Bibb, did then and there so falsely, fraudulently and feloniously make, forge and counterfeit the said forged receipt as aforesaid, with the intent to defraud, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.
And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said William R. Bibb, at and in the county and State aforesaid, on the 20th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1873, feloniously and knowingly, and with the intent to defraud, did utter and publish as true, a certain forged receipt, which last mentioned forged receipt is as follows, to-wit:
“Franklin county, Missouri, November 25th, 1872. Received of William R. Bibb, former constable of Boles township, the sum of $193.70, being the amount in full of judgments and interest to date, in the following suits, judgment being rendered in the court of Julius Kahrmann, a justice of the peace of Boles township. William D. Jeffries' estate v. A. F. Stiles and Sam. Groff; William D. Jeffries' estate v. Jas. N. Hogan and D. S. Robertson; William D. Jeffries's estate v. Jas. H. Leathers and A. Leathers; William D. Jeffries' estate v. Thomas Watson. The above being subject to Squire Kahrmann's books.
C. W. JEFFRIES,
Admr. of W. D. Jeffries' estate, deceased.”
He the said William R. Bibb, at the time he so uttered and published said last mentioned forged receipt as aforesaid, then and there well knowing the same to be forged, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.
The defendant demurred, assigning the following reasons:
1st. Because said indictment charged no offense known to the law.
2nd. Because it is not charged in said indictment that by the instrument alleged to have been forged, any pecuniary demand or obligation was purported to be transferred, created, increased, discharged or diminished, or that by said instrument any rights of property whatsoever were or purported to be transferred, conveyed, discharged, increased or in any manner affected.
3rd. Because the indictment contains neither the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rieger v. United States
...the allegation as to the particular ownership of the vessel was unnecessary. See, also, State v. Davis, 109 N.C. 780, 14 S.E. 55; State v. Bibb, 68 Mo. 286; People Phillips, 70 Cal. 61, 11 P. 493; U.S. v. Matthews (D.C.) 68 F. 880; Rogers v. State, 90 Ga. 463, 16 S.E. 205; Long v. State, 23......
-
State v. Kinder
... ... copy or facsimile thereof. Sec. 3901, R. S. 1919. But where ... the instrument is set out according to its tenor, the purport ... clause must be disregarded as surplusage. State v ... Chamberlain, 89 Mo. 129; State v. Yerger, 86 ... Mo. 33; State v. Pullins, 81 Mo. 387; State v ... Bibb, 68 Mo. 286. (2) The character of the instrument ... must be determined from the instrument itself as pleaded ... in haec verba. State v. Andrews, 249 S.W ... 60. (3) One who executes an instrument purporting on its face ... to be executed by him as agent of a principal therein named, ... ...
-
State v. Riley
... ... Christian name of one of the owners of the property. The ... failure to state such owner's Christian name is not such ... an error as to prejudice the substantial rights of defendant ... upon the merits. R. S. 1889, secs. 4114 and 4115; State ... v. Baker, 64 Mo. 282; State v. Bibb, 68 Mo ... 286; State v. Mohr, 68 Mo. 303; State v ... Johnson, 93 Mo. 73; State v. Johnson, 93 Mo ... 317. The indictment would have been good if the name of W. E ... Brocken had been omitted. R. S. 1889, sec. 4106. (2) It will ... be presumed that the trial court, in refusing defendant's ... ...
-
State v. Hayes
...of the owners of the store were sufficiently set out. Sections 1820 and 1821, Revised Statutes, 1879; State v. Barker, 64 Mo. 282; State v. Bibb, 68 Mo. 286; State v. 68 Mo. 303. (3) The court in its instructions properly declared the law to the jury. First. Defendant was guilty if he aided......