Malton v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from the District Court of Anderson. Tried below before Hon. F. A. Williams. This conviction is for forgery, and the punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years. The forged instrument, which was read in evidence, is as follows: “Elkhart, Texas, 7-23, ’88.—Mr. Ash, let Walter have env thing he want. “G. W. Whitley.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of Anderson. Tried below before Hon. F. A. Williams. This conviction is for forgery, and the punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years. The forged instrument, which was read in evidence, is as follows: “Elkhart, Texas, 7-23, ’88.—Mr. Ash, let Walter have env thing he want. “G. W. Whitley.” Henry Hewitt, a witness for the State, testified that G-. W. Whitley had an account with the firm of Michael Ash for 1888. On July 23, 1888, defendant presented to witness, who was a clerk for said firm, the order above set forth. Hewitt told…
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Judge.
The indictment in this case concludes, “against the peace & dignity of the State,” using the character in the place of the word “ and.” It is urged by appellant that this is. not a sufficient compliance with the Constitution and statute in respect to the conclusion of the indictment. Speaking of this, the Supreme-Court of Alabama said that “the sign ‘&’ for ‘and’ has been used in. practice too long for a court now to entertain an objection to its employment.” Pickens v. State, 58 Ala., 364, 365. The use of well understood abbreviations in an indictment -does not render it…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. MorrisTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- Pickens v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. McPhersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Beedy v. FinneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- State v. CallawayWyoming Supreme Court · 1954
- Andrade v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1984