Weils v. State

• Decision Date: 01 August 1892
• Citation: 89 Ga. 788,15 S.E. 679
• Parties: Weils v. State.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

15 S.E. 679

89 Ga. 788

Weils

v.State.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 1, 1892.

Swindling—Procuring Note from Illiterate Person.

1. One dealing with an illiterate person, writing a promissory note for him to execute, inserting therein an amount larger than that stipulated for, falsely and fraudulently reading over the note as if it contained the true amount, signing the maker's name thereto at his request, and also the name of an attesting witness, the maker and the witness both subscribing with their mark, commits the offense of cheating and swindling, but does not commit the offense of forgery. Com. v. Sankey, 22 Pa. St. 390.

2. The court erred in not granting a new

trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Marion county; J. H. Martin, Judge.

John W. Wells was convicted of the forgery of a note, and brings error. Reversed.

The official report is as follows: The note as declared on and as Introduced in evidence is dated February 23, 1891, is payable to the New Home Sewing Machine Company or order, is for $50, and is signed by Lazarus Smith, (with his mark,) and witnessed by J. T. Griffin and by the defendant. It recites that it is given for a No. 1, 090, 179 New Home sewing machine, and stipulates that this machine shall remain the property of the company until this note is fully paid. The defendant was an agent of the company. About the 1st of February, 1891, he traded to one Brown a New Home sewing machine No. l, 090, 179, for an old Wheeler & Wilson sewing machine and $20, and afterwards sold to Lazarus Smith the Wheeler & Wilson machine at an agreed price of $25, taking from Smith, at the time of the sale, either the note above mentioned or a note for $25. Smith could not read or write, and with his consent the defendant wrote the signature, Smith making his mark. Griffin was present, and defendant asked him to witness the signature, and he, being also unable to read or write, requested the defendant to write his (Griffin's) name, which defendant did. The general agent of the company testified that the company never has the same number on any two machines; that the defendant's duty "wasto take the first payment or the whole amount and return it to the company. His duty also was to take notes when he sold machines, and to collect the notes and return the money to the company. He could sell them for cash, or on installments, if he collected as much as ten or fifteen dollars down, and take notes for the balance. Ten dollars was the smallest amount he was allowed to receive when he sold on installments or note sale. * * * He had authority to exchange New Home machines for old ones in a trade at a...