Walker v. State

• Decision Date: 12 December 1906
• Citation: 56 S.E. 113,127 Ga. 48
• Parties: WALKER v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

56 S.E. 113

127 Ga. 48

WALKER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

December 12, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

The allegation that the defendant did "utter and publish" a certain forged check is supported by evidence that he offered to pass said check to another person as a genuine instrument, though the offer was not accepted and the defendant did not exhibit the forged instrument to the witness, there being other evidence from which the jury might find that said check had been forged by the defendant and was in his possession at the time said offer was made.

On the trial of one charged with forgery, it is competent for the state to prove that for some time immediately preceding the date when the check alleged to have been forged was cashed the defendant was without means and in need of money, and that immediately thereafter he was seen with a considerable sum of money, and presented a $10 bill to a witness in payment of a debt.

The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

Error from Superior Court, Jasper County; H. G. Lewis, Judge.

Reuben Walker was convicted of forgery, and brings error. Affirmed.

B. F Leverett and Greene F. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

Joseph E. Pottle, Sol. Gen., for the State.

BECK J.

1. The defendant, Walker, was indicted for the offense of forgery one of the counts of the indictment charging that "said Reuben Walker and [codefendant] did then and there falsely pass, utter, and publish said check as true, well knowing that the same was falsely and fraudulently made, signed forged, and counterfeited." And the judge charged the jury the law applicable to this count in the indictment. The movant excepted to this portion of the judge's charge alleging that "there was no evidence in the case to authorize the same, and it gave the state the benefit of a theory to which it was not entitled under the evidence in the case." In this connection, Mr. Wynn, a witness for the state, testified as follows: "I was in the mercantile business in the early part of the year. Reuben Walker came to the store some time in February. He came in the store and said he would trade some if he could get his check for something like $70 or $80 cashed; that Mr. Cook [the prosecutor] had sold his half of the cotton, and his check was in settlement for it. This was in the latter part of February. I think he said the amount of the check was $78 or $79; I did not ask to see it. He said it was on the Bank of Monticello, and that Mr. Cook had given it to him for his half of the cotton." The check alleged to have been forged was on the Bank of Monticello for the sum of $79.83, and bore the date of February 27, 1906. Mr. Cook, referred to in the above testimony, swore: "I never gave Reuben Walker a check in my life. *** I did not sign them [the checks alleged to have been forged], nor did I authorize any person to sign them for me. *** I think the writing on the checks looks like Reuben Walker's.' DD' The sole question presented in the first six grounds of the motion for a new trial is whether or not this testimony shows an uttering and publishing of the check in question. The portions of the court's charge therein complained of state correct principles of law, and it is only necessary to determine whether or not they were applicable to the facts in the case. Mr. Bishop in his work on Criminal Law (8th Ed.) vol. 2, § 605, says: "Since the offense of uttering is an attempt, it is complete when the forged instrument is offered; an acceptance of it is unnecessary. *** To complete the offense, there must be a representation...