State v. Singletary

• Decision Date: 04 April 1938
• Docket Number: 14654.
• Citation: 196 S.E. 527,187 S.C. 19
• Parties: STATE v. SINGLETARY.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

196 S.E. 527

187 S.C. 19

STATE v. SINGLETARY.

No. 14654.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 4, 1938

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Anderson County; J Henry Johnson, Judge.

C. S Singletary was convicted for uttering a forged instrument and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Rufus Fant, Jr., Sol., and T. Frank Watkins, both of Anderson, for the State.

BAKER Justice.

At the September term, 1937, of the court of general sessions for Anderson county, appellant was tried before Hon. J. Henry Johnson, presiding judge, and a jury, upon an indictment which originally contained three counts; the first two being as follows:

"That C. S. Singletary late of the County and State aforesaid on the 17 day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 36 with force and arms, at Anderson in the County and State aforesaid, did falsely make, forge and counterfeit, cause and procure to be falsely made, forged and counterfeited, willingly act and assist in the false making, forging and counterfeiting a certain writing, and instrument of writing, to wit, a bank draft with certification endorsed thereon of the tenor, as follows, that is to say: '$200.00 San Francisco Calif. Sept. 11th 1936 On demand Pay to the Order of C. S. Singletary Two Hundred and no/100 Dollars Value received and charge the same to the account of S. L. Read and Company. To Crocker National Bank and Trust No. San Francisco California Geo. D. Bailey' And endorsed upon the face of said draft as follows: 'Certified $200/00 No 1246 Date 9/12/36 Crocker Natl. Bank San Francisco Calif. D. V. James, Teller' with intent to defraud W. S. O'Kelly. The Western Union Telegraph Co. a corporation and others the names of whom are unknown to the jurors, against the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State."

"That the said C. S. Singletary on the 17 day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 36 with force and arms, at Anderson in the County Anderson and State aforesaid, did wilfully utter and publish as true, a certain false, forged and counterfeit writing, and instrument of writing to wit, a bank draft with certification endorsed thereon of the tenor as follows, that is to say: '$200.00 San Francisco Calif. Sept. 11th 1936 On Demand Pay to the Order of C. S. Singletary Two Hundred and no/100 Dollars. Value Received and charge the same to account of S. L. Read and Company. To Crocker National Bank and Trust No San Francisco California Geo. D. Bailey' And endorsed on the face of said draft the following 'Certified $200/00 No 1246 Date 9/12/36 Crocker Natl. Bank, San Francisco Calif-D. V. James, Teller,' * * * he the said C. S. Singletary then and there well knowing the same to be forged with intent to defraud W. S. O'Kelly and Western Union Telegraph Company, a corporation and others the names of whom are unknown to the jurors. Against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State."

Before the commencement of the trial the state elected to go to trial upon the charges in the first and second counts, namely, that of forgery and that of uttering, etc., a forged instrument, and nol prossed the charge in the third count, namely, that of obtaining property under false pretenses, etc.

Immediately before the judge charged the jury, the state asked that only the charge in the second count be submitted to the jury and the state consented to a verdict of not guilty upon the charge in the first count. Thereupon the charge in the second count was submitted to the jury, and the jury returned a verdict of "Guilty" upon said charge. The appellant was duly sentenced and in due time gave notice of intention to appeal to this court.

Upon the conclusion of the state's testimony the appellant moved for a directed verdict, which was refused. At the conclusion of all of the testimony, appellant moved that in the matter of arguments to the jury the solicitor be required to open. Thereupon the solicitor made an opening argument; then followed the defense's argument, which was followed by the solicitor's reply.

Before the indictment was handed to the jury to take with them in the jury room while deliberating on the innocence or guilt of appellant, the trial judge numbered the three counts therein contained in the order of their appearance in the indictment, I, II, and III. Upon the margin of count I and immediately below the numeral which he had placed in the margin, the presiding judge wrote the following: "Withdrawn by the Solicitor and verdict of Not Guilty directed on this Count. J. H. J., Presiding Judge 9/10/37." And immediately below the numeral III and on the margin of the said count III, the trial judge wrote the following: "Nol Pros by Solicitor before Jury drawn. J. Henry Johnson, Presiding Judge. 9/9/37." And in the indictment between counts I and II the presiding judge wrote the following: "Only Count II charging 'Uttering,' etc., submitted to the Jury. J. Henry Johnson, Presiding Judge, Sept. 10, 1937." He also marked lines through the wording of counts I and III.

Before entering upon a discussion of the exceptions in the main appeal, we will state that the exceptions to the order of the presiding judge settling the "Statement" of the case on appeal are overruled. The "Statement" as allowed is all that is necessary, and truly reflects that which is borne out by the record, without unnecessary detail.

There is nothing in the record which was before the trial judge when he made his order settling the case for appeal from which it could be said that the solicitor did not fully open in his argument on count II of the indictment. And as to what transpired at the trial, we are bound by the statement of the trial judge, even if the stenographic notes taken at the time should show differently, which they do not. This will be gone into further in passing upon appellant's exception 2 in the main appeal.

Exception 1 alleges error in the trial judge's refusal to direct a verdict on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence of appellant's guilt to submit to the jury; and exception 3, we presume, undertakes to allege a variance between the evidence and the crime charged in the indictment.

The instrument which is alleged to be a forgery, and with which appellant is charged with having uttered, knowing same to have been forged, with intent to defraud, appears as follows:

"$200.00 San Francisco Calif

Sept 11th 1936

On Demand ------ Pay to the Order of C. S. Singletary Two Hundred and No/100 Dollars.

Value received and charge the same to account of S. L. Read and Company

To Crocker National )

Bank and Trust )

) Geo D Bailey."

No. San Francisco )

California )

Across the face of this draft appears a crude "Certification" of this bank draft apparently made with a rubber stamp outfit, except in blank spaces left therefor, the amount "200.00"; the No. "1246," and the Date, "9/12/36," being filled in with pen and ink, and signed in pen and ink, "D. V. James, Teller." On the back of draft appears the indorsement, "Dr. C. S. Singletary 15 E. Coffee St."

The above-described instrument was set out in the indictment as originally drawn in each of the three counts, and of course remained in count II, the one on which appellant was convicted.

We do not see that it would serve any purpose to set forth herein the testimony on which the case was submitted to the jury. Suffice it to say that we have carefully read the entire record with the exception of pages 88 and 119, missing from the copy furnished the writer hereof, and agree with the statement of the trial judge made at the time he refused the motion of appellant for a new trial, "* * *, and no honest jury could have returned any other verdict than the one it did return."

The statutes, Code 1932, § 1211, covering forgery are mere enlargements of the common-law offense. As was stated in State v. Webster, 88 S.C. 56, 58, 70 S.E. 422, 423 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 337: "'The purpose of the statute against forgeries is...