Stafford v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. Edwin S. McDaniel, Judge. The word “purport,” used in the first indictment, imports what appears upon the face of the indictment. 32 Ark. 611; 2 Russell, Crimes, 378-382. The intent to defraud is the very essence of forgery, and the name of the particular person whom it was intended to defraud must be shown on the face of the indictment. 2 Bish. Cr.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. Edwin S. McDaniel, Judge. The word “purport,” used in the first indictment, imports what appears upon the face of the indictment. 32 Ark. 611; 2 Russell, Crimes, 378-382. The intent to defraud is the very essence of forgery, and the name of the particular person whom it was intended to defraud must be shown on the face of the indictment. 2 Bish. Cr. Daw, sec. 543; 15 Ohio, 717; 51 Ga. 535. The second indictment charged a different offense, and was barred. Statutes of limitations in criminal prosecutions are liberally construed. 4 Tex. App. 490. The proof…
1Opinion of the CourtRiddick, J.
The appellant, Houston Stafford, was, on the 6th day of May 1892, indicted by the grand jury of Washington county for the crime of forgery. The indictment charged, in substance, that he forged a certain instrument of writing, which purported to be a check or order of Funsten & Co. for $39.67, in words and figures as follows, to-wit:
“Funsten & Co. Commission.
“$39.67 St. Bouis, 30th Jan. 1890.
“Pay to the order of W. H. Peters thirty-nine and 67-100 dollars. Funsten & Co.
“Merchants National Bank, St. Bouis.
“No. 41383.
Indorsed on the back, “W. H. Peters.”
—That said forgery was made with the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Davenport v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1921
- State v. DisbrowSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- People v. BucknerIllinois Supreme Court · 1917
- Hickey v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1915
- Moore v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.