State v. Phillips
| Citation | 78 Mo. 49 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. PHILLIPS, Appellant, |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court.--HON. W. F. GEIGER, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
J. M. Patterson for appellant.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.
At the November term, 1879, of the circuit court of Greene county, the defendant was indicted for uttering a forged instrument, and, on a trial, was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of two years. He appeals from the judgment.
Section 1399, Revised Statutes 1879, under which he was indicted, declares that any one shall be deemed guilty of a forgery, who, with intent to defraud, shall pass, utter or publish, or attempt to pass, utter or publish, as true, any forged, counterfeited or falsely uttered instrument, knowing such instrument or writing to be uttered, forged or counterfeited; and section 1686 provides that: “It shall be sufficient in any indictment for any offense where an intent to injure, cheat or defraud shall be necessary to constitute the offense, to allege that defendant did the act with such intent, without alleging the intent of the defendant to be to injure, cheat or defraud any particular person.” The indictment was sufficient. It did not charge an intent to defraud or cheat any particular person, but that the defendant did pass, utter and publish the forged instrument with the intent to injure and defraud.
There was no error in the refusal of the instruction asked by defendant to the effect, that unless the State had shown that the whisky obtained on the forged order was of some value, the jury should acquit. It was immaterial whether anything was obtained on the order or not. The offense consists in uttering it with an intent to defraud.
All concurring, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyburn v. Mitchell
... ... mortgages to Mr. Kilgour and Mrs. Mitchell were valid by ... reason of Mr. Robertson's acquiescence. Sexton v ... Anderson, 95 Mo. 373; State ex rel. v ... Brockman, 39 Mo.App. 136, 137; Huiskamp v. Wagon ... Co., 121 U.S. 310; Purple v. Farrington, 119 ... Ind. 164; Pepper v ... ...
-
The State v. Tobie
...State v. Yerger, 86 Mo. 33; State v. Horner, 48 Mo. 520; State v. Jones, 86 Mo. 623; State v. Wood, 124 Mo. 412, 27 S.W. 1114; State v. Phillips, 78 Mo. 49; 8 and Eng. Ency. Law, p. 507, note 2. II. No error can be predicated upon the action of the court in refusing to permit the defendant ......
-
State v. Jackson
...the indictment charge an intent to defraud any particular person. It is sufficient if it charges generally an intent to defraud. State v. Phillips, 78 Mo. 49. (b) There is no in defendant's contention that a deposit slip or ticket issued by a bank to a depositor is not a subject of forgery.......
-
The State v. Rowlen
...State v. Rucker, 93 Mo. 88, 5 S.W. 609; State v. Fisher, 65 Mo. 437; State v. Pullens, 81 Mo. 387; State v. Eades, 68 Mo. 150; State v. Phillips, 78 Mo. 49; State Yerger, 86 Mo. 33. II. The court gave four instructions at the instance of the state and two on the part of the defendant, which......