The State v. Schneiders

• Decision Date: 23 June 1914
• Parties: THE STATE v. EDGAR SCHNEIDERS, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

168 S.W. 604

259 Mo. 319

THE STATE v. EDGAR SCHNEIDERS, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

June 23, 1914

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. James E. Withrow Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Hudson & Hudson for appellant.

The circuit attorney in his closing argument to the jury was allowed by the court, over the objections of the defendant to heap odium and invective on the head of the defendant in the presence of the jury by calling him such names as "crook," "scoundrel," "whiner," "perjurer," "maudlin crook," "sneak," and other vile and insulting epithets. State v. Prendible, 165 Mo. 329; State v Fischer, 124 Mo. 464; State v. Kring, 93 Mo. 595; State v. Jackson, 95 Mo. 653.

John T. Barker, Attorney-General, for the State; Sutton & Huston of counsel.

(1) The indictment follows the language of the statute and the approved forms and is sufficient. Secs. 4651, 4656, R. S. 1909; State v. Mills, 146 Mo. 195, 204; State v. Chissell, 245 Mo. 554; State v. Paul, 203 Mo. 683; State v. Watson, 65 Mo. 117; State v. Carragin, 210 Mo. 354. (2) The defendant was convicted under the second count of the indictment, which is bottomed upon Sec. 4656, R. S. 1909. Every element of the offense charged is fully substantiated by the evidence. State v. Chissell, 245 Mo. 549; State v. Mills, 146 Mo. 195; State v. Watson, 65 Mo. 115; State v. Carragin, 210 Mo. 351. (3) This court has uniformly refused reversals on account of the use of epithets where such epithets were suggested by and related to the facts in evidence, or called forth by the character of the crime, as disclosed by the evidence, as it has uniformly condemned mere abuse not related to or justified by the evidence. State v. Rasco, 239 Mo. 580; State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 589; State v. Allen, 174 Mo. 698; State v. Zumbunson, 86 Mo. 113; State v. Gartrell, 171 Mo. 512; State v. Miles, 199 Mo. 533; State v. Emory, 79 Mo. 463; State v. Griffin, 87 Mo. 615. The character of the crime committed by defendant, and the artful machinations employed by him to accomplish his purpose, as shown by the evidence, tended strongly to characterize him as a "crook," and we see no reason why the prosecuting attorney should not as well call to the attention of the jury this fact as any other fact deducible from the evidence in the case. A great deal has been said in condemnation of attempts to move the passions of jurors by abuse of prisoners on trial; but there is no reason to condemn, or even criticise, a prosecuting officer for endeavoring to arouse in the jurors a righteous wrath against crime and criminals, by the strongest denunciation and fiercest invective, which the character of the crime as disclosed by the evidence will justify. State v. Miles, 199 Mo. 547. (4) The verdict finds the defendant guilty of forgery in the third degree, as charged in the second count of the indictment, and assesses his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years, and we are unable to see what more could be required. The verdict is sufficient in every particular. State v. Shoemaker, 7 Mo. 177; State v. Carragin, 210 Mo. 369.

FARIS, J. Walker, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.

OPINION

FARIS, J.

From a conviction in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis of the crime of forgery in the third degree, and a sentence therefor to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years, defendant has appealed.

The indictment contained two counts; the first of which charged him with forging a certain promissory note, and the second thereof with uttering said forged note.

The facts in the case as we gather them from the record, are that the Industrial Loan Company (hereafter for brevity called Loan Company), the payee in the note said to have been forged and uttered, is a corporation under the laws of Missouri and engaged inferentially in the city of St. Louis in the making of loans in small sums, seemingly to persons of small means, which loans are agreed to be repaid in weekly installments. In order to procure a loan it is necessary for the applicant therefor, who in this case was the defendant, and who is styled "the maker" in the note he is required to make, and "the holder" in the contract in which he is required to enter into, to sign an application for such loan, which application must also be signed by two guarantors who obligate themselves to pay, in the event of the borrower's default. The note made is also required to be signed by such guarantors, who are styled therein "co-makers."

About the 8th of January, 1913, defendant being desirous of obtaining a sum of money approximating $ 200, for the purposes, as he contends, of meeting pressing demands and of procuring medical treatment for a small son, or as the State on the other hand contends, for the purpose of procuring the signing of a bail bond for the brother of defendant then in jail on the charge of embezzlement, made an application to the Loan Company for a loan in said sum of $ 200. This application was signed by F. E. Thorwegen and Joseph M. Press. The latter testifies that he signed this application himself and that his name is "Joseph H. Press;" it appears in the record as "Joseph M. Press," and he swears he was in the habit of signing his name as "Joseph W. Press." The application for this loan was either written by or in the presence of said Press.

Just here we would as well say that there is no contention by the State that any other names on this note, except that of Joseph H. Press and J. W. Breen have been forged by defendant or anyone else.

The proof in the case shows that after the application for this loan was made out and signed by said Press he agreed to sign and intended later to sign the note. This note was afterward presented to him, but since the time of its presentation to him for his signature was not within business hours, he declined to sign it at that time, but requested defendant to come again the next day. Afterward, he says, he was told by defendant that he had gotten the matter through without the necessity of having the witness Press sign it. Defendant contends, and this is his defense as to this signature, that Press did sign this note and as to him there is no forgery.

After the note was signed by the defendant, by the latter's wife, Helen Schneiders, and F. E. Thorwegen, all of whom, as stated, are bona fide signers and touching none of whom is there any contention of forgery, it was presented to the Loan Company containing also the name thereon of "Joseph M. Press." The Loan Company took time to investigate the standing of the maker, as well as the co-makers, and after making such investigation and laying, as the cashier thereof testifies, the matter of this loan before the Loan Company's directors, defendant was requested to obtain further security, which he did, or pretended to do by placing thereon the name of J. W. Breen. Subsequently the note was delivered to the Loan Company with the names of said Press and said Breen thereon.

The defense as to the alleged forgery of the name of J. W. Breen is, that his name was not on this note when it was delivered to the Loan Company. A number of witnesses, however, called by the State and who are connected in divers capacities with the Loan Company, testified that the name of Breen was on the note when it was delivered to them by defendant. Upon delivery of the note it was discounted at the rate of six per cent for a year and defendant paid by a check the sum of $ 188, on which check he obtained the cash.

The testimony of J. W. Breen, whose name the State contends was forged on said note, is in substance that he never signed his name thereon and was never asked by defendant to do so, but that he did write a letter of recommendation to the Loan Company, which letter was offered by the State. The witness Breen further says that upon receiving notice from the Loan Company of defendant's default in making his payments, he immediately notified the Loan Company that he had not signed the note and he also notified defendant and asked for an explanation, and that shortly afterward he met defendant in an office building in St. Louis and defendant said to him, "I suppose you want to kill me," and the witness replied, "No, I am sorry for you." This witness also testified that he was familiar with the hand-writing of defendant and that the signature of witness's name upon the alleged forged note was not, in his opinion, the writing of the defendant.

The witnesses Arthur A. Blumeyer and Alice Miles, the first of whom is cashier and the other a stenographer for the Loan Company, both testified for the State that defendant brought the note into the office of the Loan Company on January 8, 1913, and that when the note was delivered it contained the names of both Press and Breen, signed thereto as "co-makers."

Defendant testifying for himself corroborates the facts shown by the State down to the point where the note was given him by the Loan Company for the purpose of having it signed by himself and his co-makers. Thereafter he said he saw Mr. Thorwegen and Mr. Press and that all three went to defendant's home together and signed the note. To corroborate his defense that the witness Press did in fact sign the note, he called Ella Schneiders, the wife of his brother, and his son Arthur Schneiders, a boy aged some eleven years, both of whom testified that they saw Press making out at the home of defendant certain papers, which were called while the work of preparing the same was progressing, "co-maker's papers," and both of these witnesses testified that Press did sign this note. Upon cross-examination, however, it becomes somewhat doubtful whether much credence is to be placed upon this phase of their testimony,...