State v. Wheeler
| Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
| Citation | 19 Minn. 70 |
| Parties | STATE OF MINNESOTA v. FRANCIS T. WHEELER. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
"The wheat named "ST. PAUL & SIOUX CITY ELEVATOR COMPANY
herein to be St. Peter 9 Mo 29 day 1871
held at risk Received of J. Simmon, Mornoka, load No 20, ticket
of owner for No 2402 account of W. B. N. or bearer No 1 wheat
loss or damage Bin No 7 No 84, 05-60 bushels
from fire, M. GOOD, Inspector."
lightning, or heating." "To be indorsed by the party to whom paid."
E. St. Julien Cox, for plaintiff in error.
F. R. E. Cornell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
As an instrument, to be the subject of an indictment for forgery, must either appear on its face to be, or be in fact, one which, if true, would possess some legal validity, (2 Bishop, Crim. Law, § 503,) so, if it do not so appear on the face of the instrument set out in the indictment, facts must be averred which will enable the court to see that, if it were genuine, it would possess such validity. 2 Bishop, Crim. Law, §§ 512, 513; People v. Shall, 9 Cow. 778; People v. Harrison, 8 Barb. 560; Com. v. Ray, 3 Gray, 441; 2 Russ. Crimes, 374; Rex v. Wilcox, Russ. & R. 50.
Tried by this rule this indictment is insufficient. It is found under Gen. St. c. 96, § 1: "Whoever falsely * * * forges any * * * accountable receipt for money, goods, or other property, with intent to injure or defraud any person, shall be punished," etc.
The instrument set out purports to be a statement by " that the St. Paul & Sioux City Elevator Company had received at St. Peter 84 bushels and 5 pounds of No. 1 wheat for account of W. B. N. or bearer.
It is said by the defendant in error that the legal effect of this kind of instrument is to entitle the innocent holder for value to that number of bushels of No. 1 wheat on presentation to the St. Paul & Sioux City Elevator Company. Suppose that it is: how does that appear on the face of this instrument? In point of fact it does not purport to be signed on behalf of the company. The addition of "inspector" after the name of the subscriber does not indicate, in itself, the existence of any relation whatever between himself and the company, much less of any such relation as would in itself import any authority on his part to act for it.
It is said by the defendant in error that it is apparent from the mere inspection of the paper, and from the known way in which that kind of paper is used in business matters, that it is possible that this instrument could be used to defraud; that is to say, to make this indictment good, the way in which such a paper is used in business matters must be known. But that is something of which the court cannot take notice; it is a fact to be proved. If the St. Paul & Sioux City Elevator Company, whether it be a corporation, or a firm, or an individual doing business under that name, receives wheat and gives its obligation to account therefor to any one or in any way, signed by its agent, it is good against it, and any forgery of such obligation would be indictable; and an indictment setting out such forged instrument would be good without extrinsic averment. But the company would not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goodrich
...might be defrauded by it, extrinsic facts must be alleged in the indictment showing that some person could be defrauded by it. State v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 70 (98); State Riebe, 27 Minn. 315, 7 N.W. 262. The false entry set out in the indictments does not show on its face that any person migh......
-
State v. Curtis
...and whether it falls within the act or law on which the prosecution is founded. This court has heretofore recognized this rule. State v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 70, (98;) State v. Riebe, 27 Minn. 315, (7 262.) In the indictment in the present case, while the writing is called a "check," it is not......
-
State v. Fay
...such an instrument as the one set out in the indictment. Therefore the indictment does not charge a public offense. The case of State v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 70 (98), is cited and relied upon in support of the proposition. In that case the indictment attempted to charge the defendant with the ......
-
State v. Fay
...such an instrument as the one set out in the indictment. Therefore the indictment does not charge a public offense. The case of State v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 70 (98), is and relied upon in support of the proposition. In that case the indictment attempted to charge the defendant with the forgin......