State v. Walton
| Decision Date | 29 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9711.) |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. WALTON. |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit, Court of Orangeburg County; R. W. Memminger, Judge.
R. A. Walton was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The instrument charged to have been forged was as follows:
Sold to John P. Newborne. Cotton Buyer.
------------------------------------------
|3 bales Cotton| | |Marks 7 |
|--------------|-------|------|----------|
|Our Number. |Weight.|Price.|Amount. |
|--------------|-------|------|----------|
|2 |694 | | |
|--------------|-------|------|----------|
|3 |665 | | |
|--------------|-------|------|----------|
|4 |668 | |Jeff Stro.|
------------------------------------------
Cotton sold on this ticket to weigh over 400 pounds, and bagging not to exceed six yards per bale.
Jacob Moorer, of Orangeburg, for appellant.
J. Stokes Salley, of Orangeburg, for the State.
The defendant was tried and convicted for forging a "cotton ticket."
These are the circumstances of the transaction: The defendant sold three bales of cotton to one Newborne, at seven cents; the buyer at the instant made out a paper writing to evidence the sale; let it be reported. The buyer omitted of a purpose to set down on the writing the weights of the three bales. That was the office of a public cotton weigher, whose business was to weigh the three bales and insert in the paper writing the true weights.
The weigher testified he weighed the cotton and so inserted the true weights, and gave the paper writing to the defendant; that the bales weighed 494, 465, and 468 pounds, respectively. The weigher also testified that the defendant told him that no other person than the defendant himself had possession of the ticket; and the defendant did not deny that. When the paper writing was returned by the defendant to the purchaser, to get payment for the cotton, the weights appeared thereon to be 694, 665, and 668. The weigher testified that the figure which evidenced the hundreds had been plainly raised from "4" to "6, " and thus 200 pounds artificial weight had been added to each bale of cotton. There is no denial that the bales actually weighed each 400 plus.
The appellant's counsel suggested at the bar that the cotton weigher first wrote the character "4" and then for some unexplained but not wrongful purpose, wrote over it the character "6"; and he comes to that conclusion from what the weigher testified. The testimony does not at all warrant such a conclusion. The witness said: "Q. According to that ticket that '6' was put there in the place of the '4'—can you see a Q. Can you see the impression now? A. Yes, sir; I can see the '4.' Q. Have those figures been tampered with? A. Yes, sir; 200 pounds to the bale. Q. You will swear to the other figures? A. Yes, sir; I can see the print of the 4's. Q. Those figures are not your figures? A. No, sir, not the 6's. The 4's in each instance were changed to a 6. A. Yes, sir."
The defendant's only witness testified he was with the defendant from the time the defendant got the writing from the weigher to the time the defendant delivered the writing to the buyer; that witness was not watching the defendant; but that, as far as he saw, the defendant did nothing towards altering the writing.
The eight exceptions are all unprofitable; we shall not consider them seriatim, but instead of that we shall follow the heads of the printed argument.
The suggestion is made that the writing, called a cotton ticket, was not apparently valid; that it does not state the price of the cotton; that it constituted no liability. Forgery is:
"The...
To continue reading
Request your trial