State v. Caudle

• Citation: 74 S.W. 621,174 Mo. 388
• Parties: STATE v. CAUDLE.
• Decision Date: 19 May 1903
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

74 S.W. 621

174 Mo. 388

STATE v. CAUDLE.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 19, 1903.

FORGERY—PASSING FORGED NOTE—CHANGE OF VENUE—EVIDENCE—INSTRUCTIONS—IMPEACHING WITNESS.

1. It was proper to deny a motion for a change of venue, where, outside of the fact that it was not offered for filing until after all the jurors had been examined on their voir dire, and a panel selected from which to obtain 12 jurymen, and after the state had made its challenges and the defendant had completed his challenges, it nowhere disclosed any diligence; it not appearing when the accused discovered the alleged bias of the judge.

2. Evidence examined, and held to sustain a conviction for passing and uttering as true a forged note, with intent to defraud.

3. Requested instructions without foundation in the evidence are properly refused.

4. Requested instructions covered by the general charge are properly refused.

5. It is not permissible to recall a witness and cross-examine him on an irrelevant and collateral issue for the sole purpose of impeachment.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wright County; Argus Cox, Judge.

Frank L. Caudle was convicted of passing and uttering a forged note, and appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant was indicted at the March term, 1899, of the circuit court of Wright county for forgery. The indictment contains three counts. The first charges the felonious and false making of a promissory note for $600, purporting to be signed by F. L. Caudle, A. M. Caudle, and R. F. Jarrett; the second count charges him with having sold and delivered said falsely made and forged note to T. E. Gaskell; and the third count charges him with passing and uttering as true the said forged note to the said Gaskell, with intent to defraud. On his trial he was acquitted on the first and second counts, and found guilty on the third count. The record proper, since its amendment, is without error. The indictment is well enough, and the arraignment, and impaneling of the jury, and the return of the verdict, and sentence of the court, were without objection.

Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and C. D. Corum, for the State.

GANTT, P. J. (after stating the facts).

1. There was no error in denying the motion for a change of venue. Outside of the fact that it was not offered for filing until after all the jurors had been examined on their voir dire, and a panel selected from which to obtain 12 jurymen, and after the state had made its challenges and the defendant had completed his challenges, it nowhere discloses any diligence. It does not appear when the defendant discovered the alleged bias of the judge. The courts are not to be trifled with after this manner, but no exception was saved, and the point is untenable.

2. The facts in the record are substantially the following: The defendant was a young man, ambitious to deal in buying and selling stock. The Bank of Mansfield opened an account with him after this manner: "Tom Gaskell by F. L. Caudle." From time to time defendant would purchase stock on credit, and some time in July, 1898, he gave a check on the Bank of Mansfield for $194. This check was honored, and defendant came to see the bank about it, inquiring if it had been paid. He then applied to the bank for a loan of $600 to satisfy his overdrafts and to protect Gaskell. The negotiations resulted in an agreement between him and the cashier, Mr. Marr, by which the bank was to loan him $600, and he would secure it by a chattel mortgage...