State v. O'Connell

• Decision Date: 20 November 1909
• Citation: 123 N.W. 201,144 Iowa 559
• Parties: STATE v. O'CONNELL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

144 Iowa 559

123 N.W. 201

STATE

v.O'CONNELL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 20, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; W. H. McHenry, Judge.

This is a prosecution for uttering a forged instrument. There was a verdict and judgment of guilty. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.Franklin Brown and Gillespie & Bannister, for appellant.

H. W. Byers, Charles W. Lyon, and Lawrence De Graff, for the State.

EVANS, C. J.

The charge in this case is based upon the indorsement of a check for $3.90, drawn by Cohen & Sons to the order of Flint Transfer Company, and purporting to be indorsed by the Flint Transfer Company. In July, 1907, P. W. Flint was engaged in the transfer business under the name of Flint Transfer Company. The defendant was engaged in driving one of his teams under an arrangement whereby each was to receive one–half the earnings of such team and driver. On July 12th the defendant brought to Cohen & Sons, dealers in old iron, an iron column which he sold to them for $3.90. He said that the column belonged to the Flint Transfer Company. Cohen & Sons issued their check in payment therefor, and made it payable to “Flint Transfer Company.” Later this check was negotiated by the defendant to Lorenz Ill by delivery It purported at that time to be duly indorsed by the payee. The evidence in behalf of the state was sufficient to show that such indorsement was not made by Flint Transfer Company, nor by any person authorized thereto; also, that the iron column for which the check was given was the property of one Christy, from whom it had been stolen just before the time of its delivery by plaintiff to Cohen & Sons.

1. It is urged by the defendant that, under the terms of his employment, he became a partner with Flint, and that he was authorized to use the firm name; or, if not, that he was not criminally liable, even though he transcended his authority as a partner, and especially so, if he believed that he had such right. The state of the evidence, however, furnishes no basis for the claim of partnership. Whether he believed himself to be such, or believed that he had authority to sign the indorsement or negotiate the check, was a question that inhered in the case as submitted by the court; the burden of proof being laid at all times upon the state to prove guilty knowledge and fraudulent intent upon the part of the defendant.

2. Defendant's counsel objected to all the evidence offered on behalf of the state tending to show Christy's ownership of the iron column, and tending to show that it had been stolen from him. The argument is that the crime of larceny of the iron column is entirely distinct in its nature from the crime charged in this case, and that it was therefore not admissible in this case even to prove intent. The rule that evidence of...