State v. Eades
| Decision Date | 31 October 1878 |
| Citation | 68 Mo. 150 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Appellant, v. EADES. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Criminal Court.--HON. H. P. WHITE, Judge.
J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.
Even if the city could successfully defend an action brought to enforce collection of this certificate on the ground that it was issued without authority, it does not follow that it is not an instrument calculated on its face to deceive any one to whom it might be offered. Our statute is very comprehensive, and includes every instrument or writing whereby a pecuniary obligation purports to be created. It does not make it a condition precedent that the person or corporation who appears to have made it, should have had the power to make it.
Tichenor & Warner for respondent.
Defendant was indicted in the criminal court of Jackson county at its November term, 1874, for forgery. The indictment contains five counts, in some of which defendant is charged with forgery, and in others with uttering the following certificate of indebtedness of the City of Kansas:
Certificate of Indebtedness of the City of Kansas.
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) SS. $150. No. 1792. County of Jackson,
)
This is to certify that the City of Kansas is indebted to John Halpin in the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, due and payable October 1st 1873, with interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum from July 10th, 1872. Said indebtedness having accrued on account of the Bluff street bridge.
By order of the Common Council.
Approved July 8th, 1872.
HENRY C. KUMPF,
R. H. HUNT, Auditor.
Mayor.
Defendant filed his motion to quash the indictment, which was sustained, and the State brings the case here by appeal. The reasons alleged in the motion to quash are that the crime of forgery is not charged, that the instrument of writing set out is not such as the crime of forgery can be committed of, and that there is no allegation that it is of any value. No brief having been filed by the respondent, we are left to ascertain the specific grounds relied upon to support the objections made.
The indictment is framed on Wag. Stat., sec. 16, p. 470, which is as follows: “Every person who, with intent to injure or defraud, shall falsely make, alter, forge or counterfeit any instrument or writing, being or purporting to be the act of another, by which any pecuniary demand or obligation shall be, or purport to be transferred, created, increased, discharged or diminished, or by which any rights or property whatever shall be, or purport to be transferred, conveyed, discharged, increased, or in any manner affected, * * shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of forgery in the third degree.”
The indictment formally charges the offense as defined by this section, and is in conformity with approved precedents. Whar. Prec., 264. It is, however, claimed that the instrument set out therein is not such as can be the subject of forgery, because the charter of the City of Kansas does not confer on the mayor and common council the power to issue the same. Section 16, supra, is broad and sweeping in its definition of this grade of forgery, and would seem to embrace, as the subject of it, every false writing made with intent to defraud or injure, which, on its face, would be likely to defraud.
Upon a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Sharpless
...or serve as the foundation of a legal liability, or be such that the forgery of it might tend to the prejudice of another's right. State v. Eads, 68 Mo. 150; People v. Krummer, Park C. R. 217; 24 L. R. A. 33 note; 22 Am. Dec. 306, note; Barnum v. State, 15 Ohio 717. (b) A deed, valid on its......
-
State v. Jackson
...immunity for his crime because, if the man he imposed upon had been vigilant, he would not have been deceived." In the case of State v. Eades, 68 Mo. 150, the charged was that defendant forged a certificate of indebtedness of the City of Kansas. It was insisted in that case as in the case a......
-
Norton v. Thompson
... ... that the judgment of the probate court could be collaterally impeached by awarding to the widow what had been adjudged to the heirs, citing State v. Todd, 57 Mo. 217; Lewis v. Williams, 54 Mo. 200; Brent v. Grace, 30 Mo.253; Mitchell v. Williams, 27 Mo. 399; Picot v. Bates, 47 Mo. 390; Acock v ... ...
-
The State v. Rowlen
...89; Revised Statutes, sec. 3626; State v. Fisher, 65 Mo. 437; Wharton's Precedents, sec 264, et seq.; State v. Pullens, 81 Mo. 387; State v. Eades, 68 Mo. 150; State Phillips, 78 Mo. 49; State v. Yerger, 86 Mo. 33. (2) The objection of the defendant to the introduction of any evidence "beca......