The State v. Baumon
| Decision Date | 21 October 1879 |
| Citation | 2 N.W. 956,52 Iowa 68 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. BAUMON |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal fro Johnson District Court.
ON the 7th day of June, 1877, the following indictment was returned into court by the grand jury of Johnson county. The charging part of the bill is as follows:
"The grand jurors do aver, find and present that Frederick Baumon at and within said county, on the 25th day of February, 1877 with intent to defraud, did falsely make, forge and counterfeit a certain pretended order, it being an instrument in writing, purporting to be the act of one John T Singleton, and by which a pecuniary obligation was and is purported to be created against the said John T. Singleton. The said false, forged and counterfeit instrument in writing is in words and figures following, to-wit:
'FEBRUARY 25TH, 1877.
'Dear Sir:--Please let the bearer of this have five dollars on my charge.
'JOHN SINGLETON.'
"That the said false, forged and counterfeit order or instrument in writing aforesaid was by the said Frederick Baumon intended to be an order drawn upon one John Leydell, and the name John Singleton signed thereto was by him meant and intended to represent the name of John T. Singleton."
Said indictment contained another count charging the defendant with feloniously uttering said forged instrument.
The defendant filed a demurrer to said indictment which was in these words: "And now comes the said defendant and demurs to the indictment herein found, because the instrument set forth in the indictment does not purport to create any legal liability, and the forgery thereof or uttering the same does not constitute a crime under the laws of the State of Iowa." The demurrer was sustained, and the defendant discharged. The State appeals.
REVERSED.
J. F. McJunkin, Attorney General, and M. P. Smith, District Attorney 8th Judicial District, for the State.
No appearance for appellee.
The demurrer does not point out specifically the objections urged to the form of the instrument or order, and there is no argument for the appellee. It is said by counsel for the State that it was claimed that the instrument was incomplete on its face in two particulars. First, that the payee is not named in the instrument, and Second that the drawee is not named therein. It seems to be well settled that to constitute the crime of forgery, in falsely making or uttering an order...
To continue reading
Request your trial