State v. Huebner

DISSENTING OPINION

Emmert, J.

It seems to me that appellee Huebner by a false pretense did obtain the signature of the judge to a written instrument with intent to defraud the city of Hammond as prohibited by the first offense defined in §10-2103, Burns’ 1942 Replacement. Appellee admits that the fact no money was charged as collected would not prevent the offense from being committed as prohibited by the statute.

The argument that a judgment is not a written instrument in Indiana, and that therefore a finding of facts and conclusions of law thereon, upon which the judgment must be based, is…