State v. Talip
| Citation | 90 W.Va. 632 |
| Parties | State v. John Talip and Harry Homad. |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1922 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
Foregery Indictment for Forging Shipper's Receipt, After Delivery of Goods, Quashed.
The receipt of an. express company given a shipper for goods to be transported, in which the shipper, after delivery of the goods, raises the declared value thereof, for the purpose of using the same to establish the value of the goods, subsequently destroyed by fire, and in proof of his loss, does not constitute legal evidence on the question of such value, to the prejudice of the rights of the insurance company; and an indictment charging the shipper with the forgery of such receipt, with innuendo for the purpose alleged, is bad on demurrer and should be quashed.
Error to Circuit Court, Logan County. John Talip and Harry Homad were convicted of forgery, and they bring error.
Reversed; Defendant discharged.
Minter & McNemar, and E. L. Hogsett, for plaintiffs in error.
E. T. England, Attorney General and B. A. Blessing, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
The indictment contains four counts. The first count
charges defendants with the forgery, on the day of
January, 1920, of a certain receipt of the American Railway Express Company, issued to the defendants at Clarksdale, Mississippi, December 8, 1919, by raising the value of the shipment as therein declared by the shippers, from $770.00 to $3,770.00, for the purpose of establishing the value of the merchandise contained in their store building at Omar, in Logan County, West Virginia, and their claim for loss of said goods by fire under the several insurance policies then existing upon said goods, and to defraud the underwriters thereby. The second count charges defendants with uttering or attempting to utter as true said express company's receipt in the various ways set out therein, and for the purposes aforesaid. The third count charges defendants with the forgery, at the same time and place, of another receipt of said express company, issued to them at Clarksdale, Mississippi, dated December 10, 1919, by raising the declared value of the shipment receipted for, from $175,00 to $1,750.00, for the same purposes alleged with respect to the receipt described in the first and second counts. The fourth count charges defendants with uttering or attempting to utter as true the receipt described in the third count, with like purpose and by like means as charged in the second count with respect to the receipt therein described.
There was a demurrer to the indictment and to each count thereof, which was overruled; and this action of the trial court is the first point of error assigned and relied on to reverse the judgment upon the verdict of guilty as charged in the'first count, a verdict tantamount to an acquittal on the other counts of the indictment.
The extrinsic facts and circumstances alleged in the first
count, on which defendants were found guilty, to show a reasonable possibility that the alleged forged instrument might cause injury to another, are that at the time of delivery by defendants of the receipt book containing said receipts to their trustee Bland, they knew the said receipts were to be used by him to establish the amount of the merchandise contained in their store at Omar, West Virginia, and in making claim for the loss thereof under the several policies of insurance thereon, the particular receipt alleged in the indictment covering a certain shipment recited therein of December 8, 1919. Stripped of immaterial words, blanks and figures, said receipt as alleged is as follows: "American Railway Express Co., at Clarksdale, Miss. Received from Talip & Homad, the shipments hereinafter listed, subject to the Classification and Tariffs in effect at the date hereof, which shipments the Company agrees to carry upon the terms and conditions of the Uniform Express Receipt in effect on 12-8, D. G. Value $3,700, Consigned to Talip & Homad, Omar, W. Va." Signed, "Hines, for the Company.''
The proposition in support of the demurrer is that the instrument, the subject of the alleged forgery, shows on its face that it is one which could not have been the subject of forgery to the prejudice of the rights of any one alleged in the indictment. It is argued that, if raised as alleged, it could not have prejudiced or affected injuriously the rights of the express company that issued it, for it was not, and could not under any circumstances have been bound by the declaration of value by the shipper; and that the insurance companies, not parties thereto, could not have been injured or deceived thereby; wherefore, no offense under the law was committed. As it is not alleged that the express company was or could have been injuriously affected thereby, we need not consider that phase of the proposition.
Our statute, section 5. chapter 146, Barnes' Code 1918, provides: "If any person forge any writing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merchants' Bank & Trust Co. v. People's Bank of Keyser
... ... without notice of anything impeaching its validity ... It is ... not the law of this state that an alteration in a negotiable ... instrument, which was apparently made at the time and by the ... same hand or instrument used in the ... these definitions. State v. Pine, 56 W.Va. 1, 48 ... S.E. 206; State v. Lotono, 62 W.Va. 310, 58 S.E ... 621; State v. Talip & Homad, 90 W.Va. 632, 111 S.E ... 601. In the latter case we held that raising the declared ... value in a receipt given by an express company ... ...
-
State v. Kelly
...if there is intent to defraud and potential prejudice to the rights of another. This point was discussed in State v. Talip, 90 W.Va. 632, 635, 111 S.E. 601, 602 (1922), where we cited cases from other jurisdictions which held that it is "not essential to the crime of forgery that actual inj......
-
Barbee v. Amory
... ... State v. Talip and Homad, 90 W.Va. 632, 111 S.E ... 601; Merchants' Bank & Trust Co. v. People's ... Bank, 99 W.Va. 544, 130 S.E. 142; State v ... ...
-
State v. Nichols
...the writing to be forged; and (4) the writing itself was of such a nature as to prejudice the legal rights of another. State v. Talip, 90 W.Va. 632, 111 S.E. 601 (1922); State v. Lotono, 62 W.Va. 310, 58 S.E. 621 (1907); State v. Viquesney, 103 W.Va. 392, 137 S.E. 538 (1927). The appellant ......