State v. Jetts

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation300 S.W. 752
Docket NumberNo. 28338.,28338.
PartiesSTATE v. JETTS.
Decision Date12 December 1927
300 S.W. 752
No. 28338.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
December 12, 1927.

[300 S.W. 753]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; James H. Austin, Judge.

Eliud H. Jetts was convicted of uttering a forged instrument, and he appeals. Affirmed.

North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and H. 0. Harrawood, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.


There was filed in the circuit court of Jackson county an indictment in two counts, the first charging defendant with forging a certain check, and the second charging him with having it in his possession on or about November 7, 1925, with intent to defraud, and with selling and delivering same, with intent to have it uttered and passed. The jury were silent with respect to the first count, but returned a verdict on the second count finding him guilty of uttering a forged instrument as charged, and fixing his punishment at four years in the penitentiary. An appeal was taken from the judgment entered thereon.

The testimony for the state warrants the finding that George Cope, in October and November, 1925, was a general contractor residing in Kansas City. Defendant worked for him as a plasterer on a job at Independence, continuing the employment to about November 2, 1925, after working from two to three weeks. Cope paid defendant for his work in cash. At the time of discontinuing the employment, defendant solicited a loan of $65 from Cope, which was refused. Thereafter, probably on November 2, 1925, but, if not then, on November 7, 1925, defendant entered the store of one Julius Matlaw in Kansas City, who stated that he had many times before cashed for defendant checks ranging from $50 to $80, which were always found good, and presented a check which we think was dated November 2, 1925, Kansas City, Mo., drawn on Traders' National Bank, payable to the order of E. H. Jett for $62.50, and signed "Geo. Cope." On the back thereof were the indorsements of E. H. Jetts and Julius Matlaw, and the stamped indorsement of the City Bank of Kansas City, with which bank Matlaw made the deposit, showing the date "Nov. 4, 1925." Defendant admitted presenting this check to Matlaw and indorsing it on the back, as well as receiving cash and a credit on his running account. The check was refused clearance, and returned to Matlaw with the notation "No account." George Cope stated that he did not issue or execute the check, and that the signature of the maker on it was not his signature. He further stated that he did not do business, or have an account, with the Traders' National Bank, or know its location.

300 S.W. 754

Matlaw stated that the Traders' National Bank in Kansas City is a banking corporation. He further stated that defendant's reputation for truth, veracity, and as a law-abiding citizen was good. He had always found him honest and straight, and in cashing checks for him previously he had always found him to be all right, and that is why he never questioned him.

The testimony for the defense tends to establish that defendant knew a negro man by the name of George Cope to whom he had advanced $45 for the purpose of buying materials for a job, with the understanding that upon the completion of the work defendant was to be returned $45, together with one-half of the profits. George Cope, the negro, gave him the check he negotiated to Matlaw in payment of the $45 advanced for materials and one-half of the profits of the job. Defendant stated that he had seen the negro but once since the check was given him, to wit, about November 9, 1925, although he had searched for him without success. Defendant testified that the negro George Cope stated that he lived at 1922 East Fourteenth street. He further stated that he (the defendant) had worked at 2118 Tracy avenue.

In rebuttal the state offered in evidence the testimony of a negro woman who stated that she owned the premises at 1922 East Fourteenth street; that she ran a rooming house; and that no negro by the name of George Cope ever lived there. Another witness for the state testified that defendant never worked at 2118 Tracy avenue. Such other facts as are pertinent if any, will be later noted.

I. The first assignment of error holds to the contention that the indictment is deficient, uncertain, faulty, and bad. As it is rather lengthy, we think it unnecessary to set it forth. We are content with saying that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Pinkard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Diciembre 1927
  • State v. Barbour, 37458.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 10 Junio 1941
  • State v. Copeland, 33,170.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 17 Mayo 1934
    ......(2d) 552; State v. Standifer, 289 S.W. 857; State v. Tippett, 296 S.W. 135; State v. Burrell, 298 Mo. 678; State v. Simon, 295 S.W. 1080; State v. Fannin, 296 S.W. 85; State v. Adams, 318 Mo. 723, 300 S.W. 743; State v. Hohensee, 62 S.W. (2d) 436; State v. Miller, 17 S.W. 356; State v. Jetts, 300 S.W. 752; State v. Moore, 36 S.W. (2d) 928. (2) There was no error committed in regard to the Sadler letter. Assistant circuit attorney not guilty of misconduct in closing argument to jury. State v. Carroll, supra; State v. Tippett, supra; State v. Ellis, 290 Mo. 230; State v. Beaghler, 18 ......
  • State v. Clark
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 9 Octubre 1944
    ......Cook, 207 S.W. 831; State v. Thomas, 1 S.W.2d 157. (4) Appellant's assignment of. error No. 2 to the effect that the court erred in refusing to. give Instruction 8, presents nothing for review by this. court. Sec. 4125, R.S. 1939; State v. Summers, 6. S.W.2d 883, 320 Mo. 189; State v. Jetts, 300 S.W. 752; State v. Sillyman, 7 S.W.2d 256; State v. Bowman, 12 S.W.2d 51. (5) The court did not err in. refusing to allow counsel for appellant to cross-examine. character witnesses as to whether the fact that the. prosecutrix had intercourse with the defendant when the. others were in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT