State v. Fisher
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court. I. Tlfe indictment gives a sufficient description of the instrument alleged to be forged. • (Wagn. Stát., 1091, § 28.) II. This section of our law is taken from, and is exactly the same as, the 5th section of lé and 15 Yiet. C. 100. (Arch. Or. Pr. & Ph, 531.) III. The main objection raised in the court below and sustained by the court, was that the indictment does not show in what particular the alleged instrument was forged or altered.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court. I. Tlfe indictment gives a sufficient description of the instrument alleged to be forged. • (Wagn. Stát., 1091, § 28.) II. This section of our law is taken from, and is exactly the same as, the 5th section of lé and 15 Yiet. C. 100. (Arch. Or. Pr. & Ph, 531.) III. The main objection raised in the court below and sustained by the court, was that the indictment does not show in what particular the alleged instrument was forged or altered. That is not neeessary. See a precedent and comment thereon in Arch. Cr. Pr. & PL, 534-535. IV. An alteration of any…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
An indictment charging: “ That one Joseph Eislier, on the 12th day of May, A. D. 1874 at, etc., did then and there unlawfully and feloniously forge, and falsely alter a certain instrument of writing usually known as a Dunklin County-Patent, which, said patent was numbered “ ninety-one,” and purported to be the act of Moses Farrar, president of the .County Court of Dunklin County ; by which said forging and falsely altering of said patent, a right and interest in certain real property was changed and affected, and by said patent, after it was so forged and falsely altered, purported to be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. MaupinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. MittenMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- State v. StrackSupreme Court of Missouri · 1927