Legal Opinion

Chappel v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided January 19, 1910No. 324PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion of the Court

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

The indictment contained three counts: the first charges forgery; second, passing as true a forged in strument, and, third, knowingly having in possession the false instrument described, etc. The court submitted to the jury only the second count, to wit: passing the forged instrument. The charging part of this count is as follows: That “James Chappel did unlawfully, wilfully and fraudulently utter and pass as true to Otto Paschel a certain false and forged instrument in writing, the tenor thereof is as follows, to wit: Bartlett, Tex. (meaning thereby Bartlett,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Daud v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1895
  2. Shannon v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Simms v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1893
  4. Womble v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1898
  5. Baysinger v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ritter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1915
  2. Chappell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API