State v. Kattlemann

• Decision Date: 31 March 1864
• Citation: 35 Mo. 105
• Parties: THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. HENRY KATTLEMANN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

35 Mo. 105

THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,

v.HENRY KATTLEMANN, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1864.

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.

Joseph Jecko, for appellant.

The act of the defendant was no forgery for which he could be indicted, tried or convicted.

I. The mere altering of an instrument or writing being the act of another, with intent to injure or defraud, and by which a pecuniary demand and obligation purports to be diminished, does not of itself necessarily constitute the crime of forgery.

II. To make it the crime of forgery, the act of alteration must have the effect of giving to the instrument or writing altered a different effect; so as to make it, in fact, not the instrument or writing of the author or maker, but another -- a new or different instrument or writing. (State v. Weaver, 13 Ired. 491; People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. 198; State v. Floyd, 5 Strob. 58; Putnam v. Sullivan, 4 Mass. 45.)

III. The prisoner had been once lawfully acquitted of all matters in the indictment, except those stated in the first count, and all proceedings had in the last trial are therefore null and void.

S. Voullaire, for respondent.

A. pays B. $250, for which B. gives a receipt; a moment afterwards A. pays B. $50 more, and B. gives another receipt bearing the same date as the first, and including therein the amount of the first receipt ($250) and the amount last paid ($50), making $300. B., relying on the honesty of A. to destroy the first receipt, goes away leaving the two receipts written on the same piece of paper, one after another. Upon a suit between A. and B. as to how much money A. owes B., A. produces in evidence the two receipts; the date of the first being altered from April 11, 1859, to April 1, 1859, which alteration was done by A.

Now, quære, is this a forgery? The State contends that it is; because the date of the receipt was a material part of the instrument whereby a new operation was given to it, and it was done malo animo.

The amount of the first receipt, before its alteration, was merged in the second and constituted one transaction on the same day, and said first receipt was null; but the moment the date thereof was altered, it purported to be a different transaction occurring at a different time, the amount thereof no longer merged in the second receipt, but separate and distinct from it, giving it vitality and validity, and tending to prejudice the rights of B.

The essence of the offence is the intent to defraud. (R. C. 1855, p. 593, § 16, p. 594, § 21; Whar. Crim....