Taylor v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 22 March 1906 |
| Citation | 92 S.W. 292 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Boyle County.
"Not to be officially reported."
J. C Taylor was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Rawlings & Voris and Robt. Harding, for appellant.
The appellant was convicted of forging the name of Hannah G Taylor, to a promissory note, payable to the Boyle National Bank. The indictment describes the forged note with sufficient particularity to inform the accused of the offense charged, and with such certainty as to enable the court to pronounce judgment. It charges that he signed and forged the name of Hannah G. Taylor, to the paper, without her consent knowledge, or authority, and with the intent to defraud the Boyle National Bank. It was not necessary to aver what the accused intended to defraud the bank of. It was sufficient to allege that he forged her signature to the paper with the intent to defraud the bank, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer. On the trial of the case, the cashier of the bank testified that the accused presented the note signed by himself and Hannah G. Taylor, and believing the signatures to be genuine, he paid to the accused the amount of it, less discount. Sam Minor testified that he was familiar with the handwriting of Hannah G. Taylor, who was not able to appear in court, on account of her feeble condition of her health, and that whilst her name on the note resembled her handwriting, it was not her signature. James H. Minor produced and read over the objection of the accused, a letter written to him by accused, in which he substantially admitted that he had forged the name of Hannah G. Taylor to the note in question, and also forged names to a note upon which he obtained money from the Citizens' National Bank of Danville. The sheriff testified that he had had for some time a bench warrant for the accused, but was unable to find him, until he was located at Springfield, Ill., where he was arrested and brought back to Kentucky. This was all the evidence introduced for the commonwealth, and was sufficient to take the case to the jury. The accused was the only witness in his own behalf, and said that Hannah G. Taylor signed her name to the note.
Counsel contend that the court erred in permitting the witness Sam Minor to explain why Hannah G. Taylor was not present at the trial of the case, but, in our opinion, this evidence was competent. The accused was indicted for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAtee v. Commonwealth
...( “RCr 9.72 gave the trial court the discretion to send the letter with the jury during its deliberation.”) ( citing Taylor v. Commonwealth, 92 S.W. 292 (Ky.1906)). 8. In Berrier, defense counsel interviewed several witnesses, made notes during the interviews and reduced the notes to separa......
-
McAtee v. Commonwealth
...2004) ("RCr 9.72 gave the trial court the discretion to send the letter with the jury during its deliberation.") (citing Taylor v. Commonwealth, 92 S.W. 292 (Ky. 1906)). 8. In Berrier, defense counsel interviewed several witnesses, made notes during the interviews and reduced the notes to s......
-
McCandless v. Commonwealth
...the jury may take with them all the papers and other things which have been received in evidence in the cause." In Taylor v. Commonwealth, 92 S.W. 292, it was held that was proper to permit the jury to take to its room when considering of its verdict any papers which had been received in ev......
-
State v. Gregorious
... ... Wash. 221, 262 P. 622; State v. Reilly , 184 ... Minn. 266, 238 N.W. 492; State v. Madigan , ... 57 Minn. 425, 59 N.W. 490; Taylor v ... Commonwealth , 92 S.W. 292, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 1348; ... State v. Shtemme , 133 Minn. 184, 158 N.W ... 48; Commonwealth v. Madeiros , ... ...