The People v. Heed
| Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
| Citation | 1 Idaho 531 |
| Parties | The People, Appellants, v. Albert Heed, Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW-FORGERY.-If the original instrument alleged to have been forged or counterfeited is void upon its face, an indictment for forgery will not lie for counterfeiting such instrument.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Ada County. The defendant being indicted for forgery, demurred to the indictment. The district court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment of dismissal. The plaintiff appealed.
F. E Ensign, District Attorney, for the Appellants. Huston & Gray and Clitus Barbour, for the Respondent.
delivered the opinion.
In this case the grand jury at the last November term of the district court for Ada county charged the defendant Heed with the crime of forgery, as follows, to wit: That the said defendant did, on the eighteenth day of August, A. D. 1872, at the county of Ada aforesaid, make, forge, and counterfeit an Ada county warrant for the sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars, thereby intending fraudulently, feloniously, and falsely to defraud said county out of said sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars, and that he also, in like manner and at the time aforesaid, forged the indorsement on said warrant
for the like purpose. And by a second charge the said grand jury, in the same indictment, charge the said defendant with the crime of forgery, thereby intending to damage and defraud one James I. Crutcher, as follows, to wit: That he did, at the same time and place, feloniously, fraudulently, and falsely make, forge, and counterfeit the said indorsement thereon.
On the twenty-sixth day of November, 1873, the said Heed, the defendant, being in court, waived the service of process and, after hearing the indictment read, he asked for time, until December 1st, to plead to said indictment. On that day the said defendant appeared and demurred to said indictment, assigning several causes of demurrer, and among others the following, to wit: 4. "The instrument set out in the indictment does not purport to be a counterfeit of any original instrument, and that the instrument set out is a nullity, upon which no forgery or counterfeiting could be committed." We think this fourth ground of demurrer well taken, because, upon inspection of the county warrant said to be forged and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Sharpless
...504; Rood v. State, 5 Neb. 174; Keeler v. State, 15 Tex.App. 112; Howell v. State, 37 Tex.App. 591; State v. Davis, 53 Iowa 252; People v. Head, 1 Idaho 531; Dunning Brown, 3 Col. 571; State v. Cordray, 200 Mo. 29. The instrument showed on its face that it did not convey any land nor any in......
-
Raymond v. People
...It is the forgery of a shadow." Rex v. Richards, Russ. & R. 193; Rex v. Lyon, Id. 255; Rex v. Burke, Id. 497. In the case of People v. Heed, 1 Idaho 531, it was held that, if the original instrument alleged to been forged or counterfeited is void upon its face, an indictment for forgery wil......
-
State v. Burtenshaw
...insanity. It is stretching the intent and meaning of the statute beyond reason to claim that these people were defrauded by this. (People v. Heed, 1 Idaho 531.) statute expressly provides that the false making, forging or counterfeiting must be done with intent to defraud another. The mere ......
- Pickett v. The United States