May v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Portage county, made returnable in bank. It appears from the record the plaintiff was indicted, tried, and convicted of uttering and publishing a ten-dollar forged and counterfeit bank note, purporting to have been issued by the Lafayette Bank of Cincinnati to one Henry C. Hawkins, with intent to defraud, etc., at the November term of (he court of common pleas, of Portage county, 1845 — the plaintiff knowing the said…
Read the full summary
This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Portage county, made returnable in bank. It appears from the record the plaintiff was indicted, tried, and convicted of uttering and publishing a ten-dollar forged and counterfeit bank note, purporting to have been issued by the Lafayette Bank of Cincinnati to one Henry C. Hawkins, with intent to defraud, etc., at the November term of (he court of common pleas, of Portage county, 1845 — the plaintiff knowing the said note to be forged and counterfeited — and sentenced *to three years’ imprisonment, at hard labor, in the penitentiary. ,…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, C. J.
The first assignment of error goes to the sufficiency of the indictment. It ,is not contended that any alteration was made in it by the prosecutor, after it was returned into court by the grand jury. The fact we suppose to be, that in looking over the form of the indictment, before the same was submitted *465, 466to the grand jury, the pleader added the letter “s” to the word promise, to avoid all question of variance, when the note should be offered in evidence, as the word in the note is promises. The question, then, is, does this letter “5” in pencil marks, vitiate the indictment? No…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McNeal v. HuntCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1897
- Masterson v. KellerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1905
- Hackfeld v. LudovicoHawaii Supreme Court · 1896