Thomas, Alias Morse v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The alleged forged instrument, as set out in the indictment, road as follows, viz: “Nov. the 8th, 1898. Mr. Womack, please pay to Ed Morse the sum of forty-eight 48.00 dollars and charge it to me. Harry Smith.” Defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment because the instrument declared oh was not a subject of forgery, in that it had no revenue stamp upon it. This motion was overruled.
1Opinion of the Court
HENDERSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of uttering a forged instrument, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years, and he appeals.
The only question urged by appellant for reversal is that the alleged forged instrument did not have the required internal revenue stamp on it, the instrument being in the form of’ an order to pay money. The contention of appellant is that said instrument is void on account of the-' Federal statute requiring such an instrument to be stamped, and that, unless it is stamped, it shall be deemed invalid, and of no effect;…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cross v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
- State v. HillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Laird v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1884
- John v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by5 opinions
- Monahan v. WatsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Girvin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1928
- Richardson v. RobertsIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
- Ex parte ShacklettCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1951
- Pool v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1907