Howell v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Navarro. Tried below before the Hon. Francis P. Wood. Defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Navarro county for altering' the following instrument of writing; “2 “hides, $4^^: Sitman.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Navarro. Tried below before the Hon. Francis P. Wood. Defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Navarro county for altering' the following instrument of writing; “2 “hides, $4^^: Sitman.” The indictment charged that by virtue of this instrument of writing the accused was authorized to''demand and receive of W. Q-. Randall & Brother, a mercantile firm doing business in Navarro county, the sum of four dollars, and that the accused, without lawful authority and with intent to defraud, willfully, falsely, fraudulently, and feloniously altered said instrument by substituting the…
1Opinion of the CourtOgden, J.
The seventh assignment of errors presents a question which must be decisive of this ease. The defendant was indicted under Article 2094, Paschal’s Digest, for forgery, in altering the following instrument or memorandum in writing, viz.: “ 2 hides, $4=^: Sitman.” This writing, upon its face, is evidence of no pecuniary obligation, and its alteration, by simply changing the figures, could neither increase or diminish any pecuniary obligation ; and therefore that act cannot be considered forgery under the statute.
Forgery is defined by one of the best authorities on criminal law, to be “ the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Raymond v. PeopleColorado Court of Appeals · 1892
- Forcy, Alias Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
- State v. CordraySupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Wilson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1904
- Raymond v. PeopleColorado Court of Appeals · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.