Stephens v. The State
| Decision Date | 31 July 1876 |
| Citation | 56 Ga. 605 |
| Parties | Henry Stephens, plaintiff in error. v. The State, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal Law—Forgery—Elements.*—To complete the offense of uttering a forged paper, it must not only be published as true when the party knows it to be fraudulent, but also with intent to injure some one.
Forgery. Verdict. Motion in arrest of judgment. Before Judge Knight. Fannin Superior Court. May Term, 1876.
For the facts of this case, see the decision.
Wier Boyd; John S. Fain, for plaintiff in error.
C. D. Phillips, solicitor general, for the. state.
The defendant was indicted for the offense of forgery, and charged in one count of the indictment with having falsely and fraudulently passed and uttered as true a certain false, forged and counterfeit order for goods. The jury, on the trial of the case, instead of returning a general verdict of guilty, returned the following verdict: "We, the jury, find the prisoner guilty of passing a forged order, knowing it to be such." A motion was made in arrest of judgment, which was overruled by the court, and the defendant excepted.
This case comes within the ruling of this court in Couch v. The State, 28 Georgia Reports, 367, and is controlled by it.
Let the judgment of the court below be reversed.
*.Criminal Law—Forgery—Intent.—On the question of the necessity for alleging the intent to defraud, the principal case is cited in Gibson v. State, 79 Ga. 346.
See Ency. Dig. Ga. Rep., vol. 6, p. 291. See generally, Ib., pp. 292, 296.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ezzard v. State
...to the validity and effect of the verdict is controlled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 367, and Stephens v. State, 56 Ga. 605. In the first case the verdict was: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of publishing and passing the receipt in question, know......
-
Lambert v. State
... ... nullity, and amounted in law to an acquittal, as it did not ... find that the defendant, in uttering the forged receipt, had ... any intent to defraud the state or the person named in the ... indictment. Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 367; Stephens ... v. State, 56 Ga. 605. See, also, O'Connell v ... State, 55 Ga. 191; Ezzard v. State, 11 Ga.App ... 30, 74 S.E. 551; Raper v. State, 16 Ga.App. 121, 84 ... S.E. 560 ... The ... verdict rendered and received being a mere nullity, and ... amounting in law to an ... ...
-
Meador v. The Dollar Sav. Bank
...56 Ga. 605Thomas D. Meador, plaintiff in error. v. The Dollar Savings Bank et al., defendants in error.Supreme Court of the State of Georgia(Atlanta, July Term, 1876.)[56 Ga. 605] Indorsement. Evidence. Pleadings. Banks. Contracts. Practice in the Superior ... Abbott; John D. Cunningham, for plaintiff in error. John a. Stephens; Julius L. Brown, for defendants ... Bleckley, Judge. The suit was by Meador, on three certificates of deposit, [56 Ga ... ...
-
Putnam v. State
...DivisionMay 11, 1920 Syllabus by the Court. One is not guilty of uttering a forged paper unless he knows that it is a forgery. Stephens v. State, 56 Ga. 605; Raper v. State, 16 Ga.App. 121, 84 S.E. Where one is being tried under an indictment containing two counts, in one of which he is cha......