State v. Stuart
Supreme Court of Iowa
Affeal from Chickasaw District Court. An indictment was presented against the defendant, the changing part of which is as follows: “The said J. A. Stuart, on the twenty-first day of February, 1878, in the county aforesaid, did falsely, feloniously, and fraudulently, make and forge a certain negotiable promissory note, which said false and forged note is as follows: (Here follows an exact copy of a negotiable promissory note for $600, signed by ¥m.
Read the full summary
Affeal from Chickasaw District Court. An indictment was presented against the defendant, the changing part of which is as follows: “The said J. A. Stuart, on the twenty-first day of February, 1878, in the county aforesaid, did falsely, feloniously, and fraudulently, make and forge a certain negotiable promissory note, which said false and forged note is as follows: (Here follows an exact copy of a negotiable promissory note for $600, signed by ¥m. Larrabee and two others); and that defendant did falsely and fraudulently make and forge, as aforesaid, said promissory note then and there, with…
1Opinion of the Court
Dat, Oh. J.
— It is not true that the indictment states a mere legal conclusion, and does not charge the facts. The indictment in substance alleges that the defendant falsely, feloniously and with intent to defraud, made a negotiable promissory note for $600, to which as maker the name of Wm. Larrabee was attached. A copy of the note thus made is set out in full. We do not see how the material facts could have been more fully stated. That the indictment is a good one, see 2 Bishop on Criminal Procedure, § 401; 2 Arch-bold’s Criminal Practice and Pleading, 799.
The court erred in sustaining the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. HartSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
- State v. WeaverSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910