Van Sickle v. People
| Decision Date | 29 January 1874 |
| Citation | 29 Mich. 61 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William Van Sickle v. The People |
Heard January 16, 1874
Error to Washtenaw Circuit.
Information for forgery. Defendant brings error. Reversed and new trial ordered.
Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, and an order entered that the plaintiff in error remanded to the custody of the sheriff of the county of Washtenaw.
A. E Hawes, J. Logan Chipman, James S. Dewey, and O. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.
Byron D. Ball, Attorney General, for the People.
Christiancy, J. did not sit in this case.
This is a writ of error to the circuit court for the county of Washtenaw.
The plaintiff in error was charged in distinct counts, first, with having forged a mortgage; second, with having uttered it; third, with having forged the certificate of acknowledgment; fourth, with having uttered that also; fifth, with having forged a bond; and sixth, with having uttered that likewise.
The information charged that the certificate of acknowledgment alleged to be forged was endorsed on the forged mortgage. The averments and the descriptions of the different instruments imported that the papers alleged to be false were prepared and adapted to be accepted by those coming to handle them as belonging to a single transaction, and as constituting a finished bond and mortgage connected together, and framed and arranged to secure one debt.
The plaintiff in error having pleaded not guilty, a jury was impanelled to try the issue, and thereupon his counsel moved the court to require the People to elect upon which count the prosecution would proceed. The motion was refused, and the first objection arises on this ruling.
The charges directed to the mortgage and certificate of acknowledgment not only pointed to one and the same transaction, but eventually and substantially to one document. It is true that for many purposes the mortgage and certificate of acknowledgment are subject to be considered as separate things, and it is also true that the counterfeiting of either would amount to a distinct forgery. But the certificate of acknowledgment after all is an adjunct of the mortgage and one made necessary to perfect the security for record and to fit it to accomplish certain purposes. By itself, and when wholly disconnected from, and irrelated to another instrument, a certificate of acknowledgment has no legal significance whatever. It is only by being an incident to something else which is the principal matter, that it acquires any legal sense. When the certificate is connected with the principal instrument it has influence. This influence, however, is upon the character of the mortgage or other principal instrument, the beneficial operations or legal value of which may depend wholly upon whether there be annexed a certificate of acknowledgment or not. Indeed, to some purposes and intents the certificate is to be regarded as part of the instrument acknowledged. This close connection between the mortgage and certificate of acknowledgment was sufficient to justify the court in refusing to require an election among the counts directed to those papers.
In respect to the counts relating to the bond, the point is not quite so clear. But the facts, I think, bring the question on this branch of the case within the doctrine stated in McKinney's case, 10 Mich. 54, 95. At the page last mentioned the court say, that "where the several offenses charged, though distinct in point of law, yet spring out of substantially the same transaction, or are so connected in their facts as to make substantially parts of the same transaction, or connected series of facts, the defendant cannot be prejudiced in his defense by the joinder, and the court will neither quash or compel an election." We cannot say, therefore, the court below erred on this subject.
The prosecution offered in evidence the alleged forged certificate of acknowledgment. The date named in it was the 14th of January, admitted to have been Sunday. The plaintiff in error objected to its admission, but the court received it, and it is now contended that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Seymour
... ... ( State ... v. Nesbit, 4 Idaho 548, 43 P. 66; State v ... Crump, 5 Idaho 166, 47 P. 814; State v. Mason, ... 4 Idaho 543, 43 P. 63; People v. Swinford, 57 Cal ... 86; People v. Noregea 48 Cal. 123; 3 Greenleaf on ... Evidence, sec. 31; People v. Chambers, 18 Cal. 383.) ... In ... ...
-
Neff v. United States
... ... Van Steenbergh ... v. Kortz, 10 Johns. (N.Y.) 167, 169; Montgomery v ... State, 10 Ohio, 220; Chamberlain v. People, 23 ... N.Y. 85, 80 Am.Dec. 255; Pratt v. Price, 11 Wend ... (N.Y.) 128. This is not a prosecution for perjury, or for ... forgery, or for ... ...
-
Stutsman County Bank v. Jones
...person which are proved to be genuine. Code, § 3655; Winch v. Norman, 65 Iowa 186, 21 N.W. 511; Hyde v. Woolfolk, 1 Iowa 162; Van Sicle v. People, 29 Mich. 61; 1 Rice, Ev. p. In this age, when all men read and write, the jury is quite as capable as paid experts to judge of handwriting. Coch......
-
People v. Allan
...same evidence, and involve the same penalty, an election between counts may not be compelled. People v. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54;Van Sickle v. People, 29 Mich. 61;People v. Sweeney, 55 Mich. 586, 22 N. W. 50;People v. Dyer, 79 Mich. 480, 44 N. W. 937;People v. Summers, 115 Mich. 537, 73 N. W. ......