State v. Knippa
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Fayette. The case was tried before Hon. George "W. Smith, one of the district judges. The indictment was for forging, in these words: “That George Knippa, yeoman, late of said county, on the 10th day of April, A. D. 1865, with force and arms, in the county aforesaid, did then and there falsely, fraudulently, feloniously, and without lawful authority, alter, obliterate, and deface a certain receipt for $60, in words and figures as follows: ‘Received on the above…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Fayette. The case was tried before Hon. George "W. Smith, one of the district judges. The indictment was for forging, in these words: “That George Knippa, yeoman, late of said county, on the 10th day of April, A. D. 1865, with force and arms, in the county aforesaid, did then and there falsely, fraudulently, feloniously, and without lawful authority, alter, obliterate, and deface a certain receipt for $60, in words and figures as follows: ‘Received on the above freight $60 in specie/ which, said receipt was indorsed on a bill of lading given by said G eorge Knippa to one J. H.…
1Opinion of the CourtDonley, J.
It is believed that it was intended, in this case, to charge the defendant with the unlawful alteration, obliteration, and defacing of a certain receipt of the de*297fendant to one Ujffy, which receipt, it is averred, was indorsed on a bill of lading, given by the defendant to Ujffy. There is no positive and certain averment that the bill of lading and receipt had been delivered by the defendant, so as to constitute those writings, as the act of the defendant, binding him. But if it be conceded that the allegations show the receipt to be such an instrument, and to have been executed, so that an…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. MittenMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- Pylant v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1949