State v. Turner

Decision Date21 February 1899
Citation49 S.W. 988,148 Mo. 206
PartiesSTATE v. TURNER.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from criminal court, Jackson county; D. W. Shackleford, Judge.

R. B. Turner was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Affirmed.

The Attorney General and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.

SHERWOOD, J.

No bill of exceptions in this case, and defendant convicted under the second count of the indictment, and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary. The second count, referred to, is the following: "And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further say and present that R. B. Turner, at the county of Jackson and state of Missouri, on the 23d day of December, 1895, unlawfully and feloniously did have in his possession and custody a certain false, forged, and counterfeit check, purporting to be made by the Hudson-Kimberly Publishing Company, a corporation duly incorporated and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Missouri, and purporting to be drawn on the First National Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, a banking corporation duly organized according to the laws of the United States, which said false, forged, and counterfeited check is of the tenor following, that is to say: `Kansas City, Mo., December 23, 1895. No. 681. First National Bank of Kansas City, Mo.: Pay to S. M. Thompson, or order, $8.20, eight and 20/100 dollars. [Signed] Hudson-Kimberly Publishing Co., E. H.,' — with felonious intent to utter, pass, sell, and exchange the said false, forged, and counterfeit check as true, to Marcus Lazare and L. Schroeder, with felonious intent to defraud them, the said Marcus Lazare and L. Schroeder, parties doing business under the name and style of Lazare & Schroeder, parties as aforesaid, he, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Toombs
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1930
    ...in the charter, or, in other words, an over-issue. If that is not good after a verdict, then recent decisions are all wrong. [State v. Turner, 148 Mo. 206, cited with approval in State v. Jett, 318 Mo. 672, l.c. 676; State v. Prince, 317 Mo. l.c. Appellant cites State v. Wolfner, 318 Mo. 10......
  • State v. Toombs
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1930
    ...in the charter, or, in other words, an over-issue. If that is not good after a verdict, then recent decisions are all wrong. [State v. Turner, 148 Mo. 206, cited approval in State v. Jett, 318 Mo. 672, l. c. 676; State v. Prince, 317 Mo. l. c. 842.] Appellant cites State v. Wolfner, 318 Mo.......
  • State v. Jett
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1927
    ... ... first assignment of error holds to the contention that the ... indictment is deficient, uncertain, faulty and bad. As it is ... rather lengthy, we think it unnecessary to set it forth. We ... are content with saying that it follows substantively and as ... nearly as may be State v. Turner, 148 Mo. 206, 49 ... S.W. 988, in which case an indictment involving the identical ... statute, to-wit, what is now Section 3430, Revised Statutes ... 1919, was held good. The only difference between the ... indictments here and there is that the indictment here ... charges the sale and ... ...
  • State v. Jetts
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1927
    ...we think it unnecessary to set it forth. We are content with saying that it follows substantively, and as nearly as may be, State v. Turner, 148 Mo. 206, 49 S. W. 988, in which case an indictment involving the identical statute, to wit, what is now section 3430, Revised Statutes 1919, was h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT