Williams v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Citation | 51 Ga. 535 |
| Parties | Harrison Williams, plaintiff in error. v. The State of Georgia, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[McCay, J., was providentially prevented from presiding in this case.]
Criminal law. Indictment. Forgery. Bank check. Before Judge Schley. Chatham Superior Court. May Term, 1873. For the facts of this case, see the decision.
Thomas R. Mills, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for the state.
The defendant was indicted for the offense of forgery. In the indictment he was charged with, falsely and fraudulently, makingand signing a certain false, fraudulent and forged bank check, in the words, letters and figures, printed and written, as follows, to-wit:
."
The defendant was also charged, in one of the counts of the indictment, with having falsely and fraudulently uttered and *published as true the forged and counterfeit check above described, knowing the same to be counterfeit and forged, with intent to defraud, but it is not alleged who he intended to defraud. On arraignment, the defendant demurred, in writing, to the sufficiency of the indictment, which demurrer was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The case then proceeded to trial, and the jury found the defendant guilty on the second count in the indictment. The exceptions to the charge of the court, and refusal to charge as requested, are substantially embraced in the exception to the overruling the demurrer, and will be considered together.
1. The demurrer to the indictment was on the ground that the bank check alleged to have been forged was incomplete, and could not have defrauded any one. The check was not payable to bearer, or to the order of any named person, and therefore was incomplete as a bank check, and could not have defrauded the bank or the drawer of the check.
2. In the case of The People V. Galloway, 17 Wendell's Reports, 540, the cases bearing upon this question were reviewed, and the principle to be deduced from them is, that if the instrument alleged to have been forged is so imperfect and incomplete that no one can be defrauded by it, then the defendant cannot be convicted of that offense.
3. Besides, it is not alleged in this indictment that the defendant intended to defraud any person by the making, signing, uttering or publishing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. State
...It charges a forgery of the deed and of the acknowledgment thereto. Sand. & H. Dig., sec. 2077; 32 Ark. 203; 33 id. 176; 36 id. 55; 38 id. 555; 100 Cal. 188; 63 Ind. 567; 137 Mass. 109. 7. It was error to force defendant to trial upon a defective transcript. 8. The acts and declarations of ......
-
Santolini v. State
... ... payee or not. Smith v. State, 20 Neb. 284, 29 N.W ... 923. A promissory note which is forged may be uttered and ... published with knowledge of its character, and with intent to ... defraud, even where the name of the payee is left blank ... Harding v. State, 54 Ind. 359; Contra Williams ... v. State, 51 Ga. 535. An instrument falsely made with ... the intent to defraud is a ... [42 P. 748] ... forgery, although if it had been genuine, other steps must be ... taken before the instrument would be perfect. Com. v ... Costello, 120 Mass. 358. The accusation must show that ... ...
-
Smith v. State, 388
...counterfeited and falsely made draft which, because it contained no payor's signature, the court found not to be a forgery; and Williams v. State, 51 Ga. 535, holding that where a negotiable instrument on its face contained no payee's name, it was so incomplete as to be incapable of defruad......
-
Howell v. State, (No. 11639.)
...judgment should be sustained, notwithstanding that he had failed to demur to the indictment. See, as to the principle involved, Williams v. State, 51 Ga. 535 (3). This ruling is not contrary to the decisions in Dukes v. State, 94 Ga. 393, 21 S. E. 54, and Brazil v. State, 117 Ga. 32, 43 S. ......