Henry v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county. The indictment against the defendant contains eleven counts. The indictment was demurred to generally, there being no reference in the demurrer to the particular counts. The demurrer was overruled. On the trial the defendant' was convicted on the second count, and acquitted on the remaining counts. The arguments in the case relate to the second count, which is the only one passed upon by the-court.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county. The indictment against the defendant contains eleven counts. The indictment was demurred to generally, there being no reference in the demurrer to the particular counts. The demurrer was overruled. On the trial the defendant' was convicted on the second count, and acquitted on the remaining counts. The arguments in the case relate to the second count, which is the only one passed upon by the-court. The second count is as follows: “And the grand jurors of the county of Hamilton, in the-name, and by the authority of the State of Ohio, upon…
1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.
The plaintiff in error is charged in the second count of the indictment with uttering and publishing as true and genuine, a false and forged receipt for money. The alleged receipt is set out, and is as follows:
“ Espy, Heidelbach & Co. Cincinnati, July 16, 1878. Draft wanted for $910 on New York. Order of A. Henry.
“ M. Teller.”
This instrument does not purport on its face to be a receipt; nor are there extrinsic facts stated which show that it could or would have had, if genuine, the operation and effect of a receipt. The rule is that where the forged instrument is actually within the meaning…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State ex rel. Hartshorn v. WalkerOhio Supreme Court · 1848