State v. Gryder
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Barksdale, J. PPEAL from the Third District Court, Parish of Claiborne. 1. To constitute the offence of forgery, it is sufficient if there be a bare possibility . of imposing on another with the forged instrument.
Read the full summary
Barksdale, J. PPEAL from the Third District Court, Parish of Claiborne. 1. To constitute the offence of forgery, it is sufficient if there be a bare possibility . of imposing on another with the forged instrument. Nor is it necessary that the forged order be intelligently written. 38 An. 797; 35 An. 1042; Wharton’s Criminal Law, Sec. 695; Bishop's Criminal Law, Vol. 2, Sec. 592. 2. Where a forged document is copied in an indictment, and a capital “A” is put in the place of a small “a,” this is not a material variance. Nor are misspelled words, where the meaning is not changed. Whart. Orim.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Fenner, J.
Defendant was' prosecuted for forgery of a writing, which was set forth in the indictment in words following:
“Marsh th 21 the year of 1890. Jim Begman. Píese let "Webster Gryder have 2 dollars. J. A. Gandy at Home.”
On the trial the State offered as the document alleged to have been forged an instrument, the chirography of which is so clumsy and illegible as to involve difficulty in deciphering it. It corresponds, however, to that set forth in the indictment, except as to-the signature, which has much more the appearance of “Jo jandy” than “…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gooden v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- State v. CovingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
3Cited by6 opinions
- Marshall v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1927
- Santolini v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1895
- State v. WoodsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1904
- Dreeben v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
- State v. WashingtonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.