Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 03 January 1911 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,607.,21,607. |
| Citation | 175 Ind. 93,93 N.E. 448 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James A. Pritchard, Judge.
Alfred G. Williams was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Ira M. Holmes, for appellant. Jas. Bingham, Alexander G. Cavins, Ed. M. White, and Wm. H. Thompson, for the State.
Appellant was indicted by a grand jury in the Marion criminal court and was charged with the commission of the crime of forgery as defined by section 2587, Burns' Ann. St. 1908. The plea which he entered to the indictment was “not guilty.” Trial by jury, verdict returned finding him guilty of the crime of forgery as charged, and that he was 30 years old. A motion for a new trial in which 11 reasons therein were assigned was denied by the court, to which appellant reserved proper exceptions. The court then rendered a judgment against the defendant (appellant herein) that he be fined in the sum of $10, and be imprisoned in the Indiana state prison for the indefinite term of from 2 to 14 years. From this judgment he prosecutes this appeal, and assigns as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial.
The indictment charges that the defendant had in his possession a certain bill of exchange purporting to have been made and executed by one W. S. Hill, the paymaster of the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, for the payment in money of $87.25 to the order of W. E. McVay. This document, which is known as a “pay roll draft,” is set out in full in the indictment. It is further alleged in the indictment that, while the defendant had this document in his possession, he did on the 13th day of November, 1908, at Marion county, Ind., unlawfully, feloniously, and falsely forge and counterfeit an indorsement on this bill of exchange in the following words, to wit, “W. E. McVay,” and did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, etc., utter, publish, and pass said bill of exchange with said false, forged, and counterfeited indorsement as being true and genuine to the Indiana National Bank, a corporation, with the intent to defraud said bank, etc.
On the trial of the defendant in the lower court, the state introduced as its first witness one Lawrence P. Grady, who testified that he was the chief special agent of the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, and was such agent on November 12 and 17, 1908; that on the latter date he went to defendant's rooming house in the city of Indianapolis to secure from him a written statement for the purpose of obtaining defendant's handwriting. At the time this statement was signed the witness testified that defendant was sick in bed at his rooming house, that he gave the defendant a fountain pen, and that he sat up in bed and with the witness' fountain pen wrote out the following statement, which was introduced in evidence and marked “Exhibit No. 1,” and as it appears in the record is as follows:
lm. 1-18-1902. S.
The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
In the Matter of Personal Injury to at
Taken by , at Indianapolis on the 17th day of November, 1908.
My name is A. G. Williams. I reside at 1114 Fletcher Ave. My occupation is a Brakeman. On this 14th day of July, 1908, I was Brakeman on Work Extra 6323 for Conductor W. E. McVay and will say in regards to the case W. E. McVay did not kick any one off the train on that day for there was no one on there to be put off. I know positively Condr. W. E. McVay did not put any one off the train.
Yours respectfully, A. G. Williams.
Grady, the witness did not claim that he had the defendant write this statement to be used in some claim against the railroad company, but he testified that he went to the witness' room to secure the statement for the purpose of getting his handwriting. The prosecuting attorney in offering this document in evidence stated to the court that he offered it for the purpose of showing that the name of “W. E. McVay” was written therein, and that he desired to get that name before the jury to show the handwriting of the defendant, and to show that the handwriting therein in signing “W. E. McVay” is the same handwriting that signed that same name to the forged indorsement for which the defendant was being prosecuted.
The defendant objected to the introduction of this statement or document in evidence for the reason that it was not relevant or pertinent to any of the issues in the case, and was not a paper properly belonging therein; that he did not admit that the handwriting therein, as claimed by the state to be his, was genuine, but his objections were overruled by the court, to which he excepted, and the court, over his objections and exceptions, admitted the statement in evidence for the purpose desired, as stated by the state's attorney. After this written statement was introduced in evidence, it was exhibited to the jury by the state's attorney for their inspection, and during the trial the state used it as a specimen or standard of the defendant's handwriting for the purpose of enabling its expert witnesses to make comparisons. These witnesses, as it appears,...
To continue reading
Request your trial