Legal Opinion

Hocker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided April 23, 1895No. 681PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Ho statement necessary.

1Opinion of the Court

DAVIDSOH, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of forgery. Omitting prior averments, the indictment, in its purport clause, charges that appellant “did then and there, without lawful authority, and with intent to injure and defraud, willfully and fraudulently make a false instrument, in writing, purporting to be the act of another, to wit, the act of Olay Rollins, a fictitious person, which said false instrument is to the tenor of the following.” * * * Then follows the tenor clause, and the instrument does not purport to be the act of a fictitious person, but the act of Olay Rollins. This, it is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CostelloMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  2. People v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  3. State v. WheelerOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Luttrell v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1886
  5. State v. HahnSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1886

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Finch v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1921
  2. Feeney v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
  3. American Express Co. v. City Nat. Bank of GalvestonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
  4. Meredith v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1914
  5. Cox v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1934

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API