Commonwealth v. Hide
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 89 — I INDICTMENT — The fact that the words were not written in the body of the check to correspond to the change in the figures makes no difference. It would make a difference under an indictment for obtaining money under false pretenses, but not under an indictment for forgery (Bishop's Grim. Law, Title “Forgery.”)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZBLRIGG
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellee, under an indictment for forgery, was,, upon trial, found “not guilty” by the jury under a peremptory instruction from the court, and the Commonwealth has appealed.
The indictment charges that the defendant committed the crime named by feloniously and corruptly *518writing the figure 3 just after the dollar mark and before the figures 70 on the face of a check drawn in his favor by one «J. S. Morehead on P. J. Potter ■& Co., bankers, with intent to defraud, &c., thus making the check .one for $3.70 when it was in fact •one for only 70…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Lawless v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- State v. LotonoWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1907
- Howard v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
- United States v. ShowalterUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1965
- People v. LewingerIllinois Supreme Court · 1911
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.