Evans v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge; In charging the forgery of an instrument, it is not necessary to set out matter which is not necessary to the validity of the instrument. 2 Bish. Crim. Prac., § 410; 58-Ark. 242; 77 Ark. 543; 90 Ark. 123; 86 Ark. 126; 14 O. St. 55; 53 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge; In charging the forgery of an instrument, it is not necessary to set out matter which is not necessary to the validity of the instrument. 2 Bish. Crim. Prac., § 410; 58-Ark. 242; 77 Ark. 543; 90 Ark. 123; 86 Ark. 126; 14 O. St. 55; 53 Am. D. 652; 69 Ind. 485; 47 111. 152; 33 Vt. 261; 129 Va. 147; 38 N. W. 519; 108 Ind. 444. The test as to the validity of an indictment is that it is to be measured by the statute. 63 Ark. 6x3. Evidence of offenses similar to one charged are competent‘for the purpose of showing knowledge, intent or…
1Opinion of the CourtBattue, J.
The grand jury of Crawford County, in this State, indicted C. A. Evans, E. D. Harshaw and W. H. Dugan for forgery. The indictment, so far as it affects Evans, omitting caption, is as follows:
“The grand jury of Crawford County, in the name and by the authority of the State of Arkansas, accuse C. A. Evans of the crime of forgery, committed as follows, towit: The said C. A. Evans, in the said county and State aforesaid, on the fifteenth day of January, A. D. 1909, fraudulently and feloniously did forge and counterfeit a certain writing on paper, purporting to be a statement of service, which…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stokes v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1902
- Crossland v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Teague v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pennsylvania Trust Co. v. GhriestSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- People v. HoytAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- Bennett v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910