State v. Pullens

• Decision Date: 30 April 1884
• Citation: 81 Mo. 387
• Parties: THE STATE v. PULLENS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

81 Mo. 387

THE STATE

v.PULLENS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1884.

Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court.--HON. J. M. DAVIS, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Broaddus & Wait for appellant.

1. It cannot be contended that a promissory note can purport to be signed by J. J. Lawson by any name except J. J. Lawson. 1 Whar. Crim. Law, (Ed. 1874) § 342 a; Bouvier's Law Dic., Title “Purport.” 2. Private corporations must be pleaded. 2 Whar. Crim. Law, (Ed. 1874) §§ 1458, 1488. Revised Statutes, section 1915, 1821, do not aid the State. Where no one could be defrauded, there can be no intent to defraud. 3 Greenlf. Ev., § 103; People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. 198; Colvin v. State, 11 Ind. 361. The demurrer should, therefore, have been sustained. 1 Whar. Crim. Law, (Ed. 1874) § 396. The court erred in instructing the jury that if defendant falsely made and forged the instrument in question with intent to injure and defraud, they should find him guilty. It should have declared that, in order to convict, they must find that he falsely, fraudulently and feloniously made and forged the note with intent to injure and defraud. Defendant could not intend to defraud J. J. Lawson by signing the name of Jackson Lossene. He could not have forged the name of Jackson Lossene, as that is the name of a fictitious person, and no such charge is contained in the indictment.

D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.

Where a fictitious signature is stated, it should be described as purporting to be the signature of the real party. Roscoe's Crim. Ev., (7 Ed.) p. 564. Defendant signed the name of Jackson Lossene, intending that the bank should accept the note, believing it to be indorsed by James Jackson Lawson, the name of the real person, and it was proper to describe it as purporting to be signed by J. J. Lawson under the name of Jackson Lossene. State v. Bibb, 68 Mo. 286; Reg. v. Mahony, 6 Cox C. C. 487. It is sufficient to charge a general intent to cheat and defraud, without averring an intent to cheat and defraud any particular person. R. S. 1879, § 1686; State v. Scott, 48 Mo. 422; State v. Phillips, 78 Mo. 49. It was not necessary to aver that the People's Savings Bank was a corporation. It is sufficient to describe it by its general name used in business. Reg. v. Atkinson, 2 Moody top. p. 353; Comm. v. Dedham, 16 Mass. 139. When a name, such as is used in creating corporations, is referred to in an indictment, and which name discloses no individuals, corporate existence is implied without averring it. Johnson v. State, 65 Ind. 204; Fisher v. State, 40 N. J. L. 169. And it was competent to prove by parol that the People's Savings Bank was a corporation. R. S. 1879, § 1915. The instruction need not have told the jury that, in order to convict, they should find that defendant falsely, fraudulently and feloniously made and forged the note. It was sufficient to declare that if he falsely made the note with intent to cheat and defraud, the jury should convict.

HOUGH, C. J.

The defendant, in this case was convicted of the crime of forgery. The material portions of the indictment are as follows: “That one Turner Pullens * * unlawfully and feloniously did falsely make, sign and counterfeit a certain instrument in writing, commonly called a promissory note, payable to the order of the People's Savings Bank, and purporting to be signed by the said Turner Pullens, and also by one J. J. Lawson, by the signature of Jackson Lossene, and dated at Chillicothe, Mo., on the day of January, 1883, whereby a pecuniary demand and obligation for the payment of $85 at the banking house of the People's Savings Bank at Chillicothe, purported to be created in favor of the said People's Savings Bank, and against the said Turner Pullens and J. J. Lawson, and purported to be due four months after the date thereof, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum from maturity, and which said false, forged and counterfeited instrument in writing, commonly called a promissory note, is in words and figures as follows, that is to say:

CHILLICOTHE, Mo., January --, 1883.

Four months after date we promise to pay to the order of the People's Savings Bank eighty-five dollars for value received, payable at the banking house of the People's Savings Bank at Chillicothe, with ten per cent interest per annum from maturity.

Due $85.

TURNER PULLENS.

JACKSON LOSSENE.

With intent then and thereby, unlawfully and feloniously, to injure and defraud, against the peace and dignity of the State.”

It appears from the testimony, that the defendant applied to the People's Savings Bank to borrow some money. The officers of the bank told him that he could have the money, if he would get some good man to go on his note. Defendant said he could get Jack Lawson. They said he could get the money, and filled up the note for him, set out in the indictment. When the defendant brought the note back, signed as it appeared at the trial, for the purpose of getting the money, and was asked by the cashier of the bank if Lawson had signed it, he said “no,” that Joseph Lawson signed it, as Jackson Lawson had a sore hand. The cashier inquired of some one whether Jackson Lawson had a son named Joseph, and learning that he had not, kept the note, and sent word to Mr. Lawson to have the defendant arrested. J. J. Lawson testified that his name was James Jackson Lawson, that he did not sign the note, or authorize any one to sign it for him, and that the defendant came to him while under arrest and confessed that he did the act, and asked him to release him, that he thought he could get the money and pay it off before he, Lawson, found it out. The defendant also admitted to the officer who had him in custody, that he signed...