Commonwealth v. Williams
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 3 — INDICTMENT FOR FORGERY APPEAL FROM OWEN CRIMINAL COURT. The Criminal Code of 1877, sub - sec. 2 of sec. 122, requires that the indictment shall contain “a statement of the acts constituting the offense,” etc. The indictment is insufficient in this case, because it does not allege whose name was forged, by whom it was forged, or how it was forged, or to whom the alleged forged paper was uttered, or who was the victim of the alleged fraudulent act of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Case 3 — INDICTMENT FOR FORGERY APPEAL FROM OWEN CRIMINAL COURT. The Criminal Code of 1877, sub - sec. 2 of sec. 122, requires that the indictment shall contain “a statement of the acts constituting the offense,” etc. The indictment is insufficient in this case, because it does not allege whose name was forged, by whom it was forged, or how it was forged, or to whom the alleged forged paper was uttered, or who was the victim of the alleged fraudulent act of the defendant. (Stowers v. Commonwealth, 12 Bush, 342.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE COFER
delivered the opinion of the court.
The first count in the1 indictment in this case, although conforming to approved common-law precedents, is not sufficient. The charge that the appellee “forged and counterfeited and caused and procured to be forged and counterfeited a certain writing” importing a pecuniary liability, is no more than a legal conclusion. The Code then required and now requires that the acts constituting the offense charged shall be stated in an indictment.
*268There are several modes in which a forgery may be committed. It may be by signing the name of a person without…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Bennett v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- State v. FosterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- State v. RaymondNevada Supreme Court · 1911
- Kinnaird v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Tracy v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1888
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.