State v. Nichols
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Blacleha/wh District Court. 0" The first count charges that defendant on the 12th of December, 1871, did feloniously and with intont to defraud falsely make, counterfeit and forge the following instrument: “$60. . Laporte City, Dec. 12, 187 Received of Elwell & Ingersoll, Bankers, on account of J. Mills, sixty dollars. No. 75. Wright & Wi-ialey.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Blacleha/wh District Court. 0" The first count charges that defendant on the 12th of December, 1871, did feloniously and with intont to defraud falsely make, counterfeit and forge the following instrument: “$60. . Laporte City, Dec. 12, 187 Received of Elwell & Ingersoll, Bankers, on account of J. Mills, sixty dollars. No. 75. Wright & Wi-ialey.” The second count charges that defendant, on the 12th of December, 1871, did feloniously utter and publish as true and genuine a forged and counterfeit instrument in writing, described the same as the above. Before pleading, défendaut…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
i criminai, mlinh for-ct" gery- — I. That.it is proper to charge in an indictment ^01'gei',7 °f a paper, and the uttering of it as gennine> see State v. Farris, at the present term; State v. McPherson, 9 Iowa, page 53.
2. -; evition°of'S’eu II. "When the instrument alleged to have been forged was offered in evidence, the defendant objected on the ground that it was signed Wright "Whaley, instead of Wright & Whaley. The court overruled the objection, and it is urged that this ruling was erroneous. In order that we might determine the merits of this objection, we have examined the paper alleged…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Kreuger v. SylvesterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- State v. McCormackSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- McDowell v. Interstate Oil Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1931
- State v. LauderbeckSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- State v. HenrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.