Daily v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the Court
Krueger, Judge.
The offense is knowingly passing a forged instrument; the punishment assessed is confinement in the State Penitentiary for a term of four years.
The appellant’s only contention is that the court erred in declining to quash the indictment, which contained two counts. The first count charged forgery and the second (being the one upon which he was convicted) knowingly passing a forged instrument. Omitting the formal parts, the second count reads as follows:
“ * * * That one Bob 0." Daily hereinafter styled Defendant, in the County of Tarrant and State aforesaid, heretofore, on the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pospishel v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Gumpert v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Spicer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
3Cited by4 opinions
- Anderson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1969
- Anderson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1943
- Rivas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1960
- Gordon v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1940