State v. Calkins

• Decision Date: 25 October 1887
• Citation: 34 N.W. 777,73 Iowa 128
• Parties: STATE v. CALKINS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

73 Iowa 128

34 N.W. 777

STATE

v.CALKINS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 25, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Sac county.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of uttering and publishing a false and forged instrument, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary, and from that judgment he appealed.A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Charles Mackenzie, for defendant.

REED, J.

It was proven on the trial in the district court that defendant had in his possession two instruments in writing, which purported to be the promissory notes of one J. A. Lawrence, payable to defendant, and that he sold and delivered the same to W. W. Robinson. And there was evidence which tended to prove that said instruments were false and forged; also that the body of the instruments and the signatures thereto were in defendant's handwriting.

1. The sale of the instruments to Robinson was made at Odebolt, on the twelfth of September, 1884. The state was permitted, against defendant's objection, to introduce evidence which tended to prove that defendant was at Odebolt in September, 1883, and that he wrote his name upon the register of the hotel at which he stopped; also that at his preliminary examination, which occurred some time after the transaction with Robinson, he asserted in the statement he made to the magistrate that he had never been in Odebolt prior to the twelfth of September, 1884. The evidence with reference to defendant's presence there in 1883 was introduced for the purpose of identifying his handwriting. The book in which it is alleged he wrote his name was introduced in evidence, and the signature was pointed out to the jury. This was done that a comparison might be instituted between defendant's handwriting and the writing in the alleged forged instruments. The evidence was competent for that purpose. Code, § 3655. When defendant denied that he had ever been in Odebolt before the time of the transaction with Robinson, he knew that it was claimed that he had forged the instruments. He knew also that one of the means by which the prosecution sought to establish the forgery was by a comparison between the handwriting of the instruments and his signature on the hotel register. His statement, then, was a denial of the existence of an alleged fact, which, if proven, would be material and important in the cause. If the state was able to establish that the signature on the register was defendant's genuine signature, the fact that he denied it would be material; for, if he wrote that signature, he could have had no other motive in denying it, except to counteract its force and effect as evidence of his guilt. We think, therefore, that the evidence was properly admitted.

2. A witness introduced by the defendant testified that he saw Lawrence sign the instruments, and deliver them to defendant. But his testimony in that...