State v. Gee
Decision Date | 28 October 1895 |
Parties | STATE v. GEE. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; T.A. Stephens, Judge.
D.L Gee was indicted for forgery. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained, and the state appeals. Affirmed.
Defendant was indicted for knowingly uttering and publishing a certain forged and counterfeit writing, in form and similitude of the certificate described in the indictment. A demurrer to the indictment having been sustained by the trial court, the state appeals. It is charged, in substance, that pursuant to section 4085 of title 1 of chapter 76 of the Miscellaneous Laws of Oregon, compiled and annotated by W. Lair Hill, as amended by the act of February 20, 1893 (Sess.Laws 1893, p 60), the county court of Multnomah county, on January 17 1894, levied a tax of one mill upon all taxable property within the county, which was collected and kept as a separate fund known as the "road fund," to be used for the purpose of laying out, opening, making, and repairing county roads. Here follow allegations showing the establishment of road district No. 6, the apportionment of certain road funds to the district, and the appointment and qualification of John Conley as supervisor thereof. The indictment then continues: Then follows a description of the certificate and the formal charging part of the indictment. A copy of the certificate is contained in the indictment, and is as follows:
C.M. Idleman, Atty. Gen., and W.T. Hume, Dist. Atty., for the State.
M.L. Pipes, for respondent.
WOLVERTON, J. (after stating the facts).
The only theory upon which this case can proceed is that the law has provided for an official certificate or return of a road supervisor, which may be received by the county court as legal evidence of the facts certified to, and a penalty, for forging or counterfeiting the same, and for uttering such certificate so forged or counterfeited with intent to defraud. The indictment is drawn under section 1808 Hill's Ann.Laws Or., which provides that "if any person shall, with intent to injure or defraud any one falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit any public record whatever, or any certificate, return or attestation, of any clerk, notary public, or other public officer, in relation to any matter wherein such certificate, return, or attestation may be received as legal evidence, or any note, certificate, or other evidence of debt issued by any officer of this state, or any county, town, or other municipal or public corporation therein, authorized to issue the same, or any contract, charter, letters patent, deed, lease, bill of sale, will, testament, bond, writing obligatory, undertaking, letter of attorney, policy of insurance, bill of lading, bill of exchange, promissory note, evidence of debt, or any acceptance of a bill of exchange, endorsement or assignment of a promissory note, or any warrant, order, or check, or money, or other property, or any receipt for money or other property, or any acquittance or discharge for money or other property, or any plat, draft, or survey of land; or shall, with such intent, knowingly utter or publish as true and genuine any such false, altered, forged, or counterfeited record, writing, instrument or matter whatever, such person, upon conviction thereof, shall," etc. The section upon which the indictment is based provides, among other things, that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Darling v. Purcell
...to be brought to his notice, and upon which he is required to act.” People v. Foster (Sup.) 58 N. Y. Supp. 574. See, also, State v. Gee, 28 Or. 100, 42 Pac. 7;State v. Brill, 58 Minn. 152, 59 N. W. 989;State v. Schwin, 65 Wis. 207, 26 N. W. 568. It will be noted that the certificate require......
-
Nelson v. Nelson
...& Suburb Hungarian Aid Society, 283 Ill. 99, 118 N.E. 1012; City of Kankakee v. Lang, 323 Ill.App. 14, 54 N.E.2d 605; and State v. Gee, 28 Or. 100, 42 P. 7. In Benevolent Society v. Aid Society, the cause was referred to a master who found and reported the rights of the parties. Neither par......
-
Sawyer v. Lorenzen
...instrument. State v. Brill, 58 Minn. 152, 59 N. W. 989;State v. Schwin, 65 Wis. 207, 26 N. W. 568; 2 Words & Phrases, 1033; State v. Gee, 28 Or. 100, 42 Pac. 7;McDonald v. State, 8 Mo. 283;Cooper v. Nelson, 38 Iowa, 440. The indorsement or signing of the copy: “Attest: G. W. Lyman, Recorder......
-
Dreeben v. State
...have * * * not been taken'— citing Com. v. Wilson [89 Ky. 157, 12 S. W. 264], 25 Am. St. Rep. 528; Com. v. Costello, 120 Mass. 358; State v. Gee 42 Pac. 7; Foute v. State, 15 Lea [Tenn.] 712, and other Again this court, through Judge Harper, in another recent case (Horn v. State, 150 S. W. ......