State v. Gullette

• Decision Date: 08 May 1894
• Citation: 26 S.W. 354
• Parties: STATE v. GULLETTE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

26 S.W. 354

STATE v. GULLETTE.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 8, 1894.

FORGERY — ORDER FOR GOODS — INSTRUCTIONS.

1. Rev. St. § 3983, providing that a charge of intent to injure or defraud need not name any person intended to be injured or defrauded, applies to an indictment for forgery.

2. To be the subject of forgery, an order need not be addressed to any person by name.

3. An informal order to supply the bearer named with certain goods, and charge to the signer's account, is within the definition (Rev. St. § 3641) of a writing being or purporting to be the act of another, by which any pecuniary demand is, or purports to be, transferred, created, etc., or any rights or property transferred, etc.

4. Though a forgery must be calculated to deceive, it is no defense that, had the victim been careful, he would not have been deceived.

5. The fictitious order need not imitate or resemble an order such as the pretended drawer would have drawn.

6. Defendant presented at a store an order for clothes, saying that he had been working for the drawer. The clerk objected to the form of the signature, and defendant went away and came back with a forged order, signed as desired. Defendant admitted that at the time he had never seen the pretended drawer; had merely heard of him; "could not get work, and must have clothes." Held proper to charge that his guilt need not be proven by eyewitnesses, but might be by facts and circumstances from which it might be reasonably and satisfactorily inferred.

7. Failure to submit the question whether the act was done with the "intent to injure or defraud" is error.

8. Failure to charge on reasonable doubt is error.

Appeal from circuit court, Gentry county; C. A. Anthony, Judge.

Fred Gullette, convicted of forgery in the third degree, appeals. Reversed.

The defendant was convicted of forgery in the third degree, and his punishment assessed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, and he appeals to this court. The indictment is bottomed on section 3641, Rev. St. 1889, and, omitting caption, is as follows: "The grand jury for the state of Missouri, summoned from the body of said Gentry county, impaneled, charged, and sworn, and upon their oaths, present that Fred Gullette, late of the county aforesaid, on the 30th day of September, 1893, at the said county of Gentry, state aforesaid, unlawfully and feloniously did falsely make and forge a certain instrument in writing, to wit, an order purporting to be the act of one Anthony Coppersmith, by the name of Mr. A. A. Coppersmith, by which a pecuniary demand and obligation purported to be created, which said false and forged instrument and order is of the tenor following, — that is to say: `Stanberry, Sept. 30, 1893. Dear Sir: Please sell this young man, Fred Gullette, one pair of pants, one pair of shoes, one suit of underwear, and charge to my account. Mr. A. A. Coppersmith,' — with intent then and there and thereby unlawfully and feloniously to injure and defraud, against the peace and dignity of the state. And the grand jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do further present that Fred Gullette, late of the county of Gentry, and state of Missouri, on the 30th day of September, 1893, at the said Gentry county, and state of Missouri, then and there feloniously did forge and counterfeit and falsely make a certain false, forged, and counterfeit instrument, writing, and order purporting to be made by Mr. A. A. Coppersmith, a fictitious person, by which a pecuniary demand and obligation purported to be created, which said false, forged, and counterfeit instrument, writing, and order is of the tenor following, — that is to say: `Stanberry, Sept. 30th, 1893. Dear Sir: Please sell this young man, Fred Gullette, one pair of pants, one pair of shoes, one suit of underwear, and charge to my account. Mr. A. A. Coppersmith,' — with intent then and thereby unlawfully and feloniously to injure and defraud, and against the peace and dignity of the state. And the grand jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do further present that Fred Gullette, late of the county of Gentry, in the state of Missouri, on the 30th day of September, 1893, at the county of Gentry, and state of Missouri, unlawfully and feloniously did then and there falsely make, counterfeit, and forge a certain instrument in writing, to wit, an order and request purporting to be the act of one Anthony Coppersmith, by the name of Mr. A. A. Coppersmith, by which a pecuniary demand and obligation for the payment of money by the said Anthony Coppersmith, by the name of Mr. A. A. Coppersmith, purported to be created, which said false, forged, and counterfeit instrument in writing and order is of the tenor following, — that is to say: `Stanberry, Sept. 30, 1893. Dear Sir: Please sell this young man, Fred Gullette, one pair of pants, one pair of shoes, one suit of underwear, and charge to my account. Mr. A. A. Coppersmith,' — with intent then and there and thereby unlawfully and feloniously to injure and defraud, against the peace and dignity of the state."

The evidence in the bill of exceptions, made up in short form, as is sometimes done in civil cases, is the following: The state produced testimony tending to prove that on the 30th day of September, 1893, there were only two men by the name of Coppersmith who resided in or near Stanberry, Gentry county, Mo., — one, Anthony Coppersmith, a farmer, who lived just north of the corporate limits of said town of Stanberry; the other, Sebastian Coppersmith, a farm hand, who worked for said Anthony Coppersmith. That on the 30th day of September, 1893, defendant went into the store of D. W. Herrick, in said town of Stanberry, and presented to William Riggins, a clerk in said store, an order similar to the one set out in each count of the indictment, except it was signed "Mr. Coppersmith." This order the clerk refused to accept, for the reason that the initials were omitted in the signature to the order. Defendant then remarked that Mr. Coppersmith was at a blacksmith shop in another part of town, and that he would go and have him sign the order properly. Defendant then left the store. In about an hour he returned with the order described in the indictment, signed, or purporting to be signed, "Mr. A. A. Coppersmith," and obtained the goods named in the order, telling D. W. Herrick that he, the defendant, had been working for Mr. Coppersmith, just north of town, 19 days. That Anthony Coppersmith did not sign the order described in the indictment, nor had he ever seen or heard of the defendant at the time the order was presented to and accepted by Herrick. That, after his arrest, defendant admitted that he had never seen Mr. Coppersmith; that he learned from a stranger that Mr. Coppersmith was a prominent farmer, living in the vicinity of Stanberry. That Anthony Coppersmith had no account with D. W. Herrick, and was not indebted to him for goods or otherwise. The state also introduced evidence tending to prove that the defendant, after his arrest, charged with the forgery of said order, admitted that he had never seen Coppersmith, and that he found out there was a prominent man by that name living near Stanberry, from a stranger; that he "could not get work, and must have clothes." The prosecuting attorney then offered to introduce in evidence the following described order set forth in each count in the indictment, to wit: "Stanberry, Sept. 30, 1893. Dear Sir: Please sell this young man, Fred Gullette, one pair of pants, one pair of shoes, one suit of underwear, and...