State v. Cleavland
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Storey County. It appears that defendant at the time the check was drawn was in the employ of W. S. Hobart, and had authority to fill up the body of cheeks, but not to sign them. The cheek in question was one of a number said to be forged, and others of them were introduced in evidence to show guilty knowledge. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labor in the State prison for the term of two years.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Storey County. It appears that defendant at the time the check was drawn was in the employ of W. S. Hobart, and had authority to fill up the body of cheeks, but not to sign them. The cheek in question was one of a number said to be forged, and others of them were introduced in evidence to show guilty knowledge. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labor in the State prison for the term of two years. I. “ If the drawer’s, drawee’s or payee’s name be wanting or be insensible * * the instrument will not sustain the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Whitman, J.:
Appellant stands convicted of the crime of forgery, and objects to the judgment: First, that “ the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute the offense charged.” Second, that “ the instrument set out in the indictment as forged is not a legal check as shown by the indictment.” Third, that “ the Court erred in permit-ing oral testimony to prove the existence of the Agency of the Bank of California.” Fourth, that “ the Court erred in instructing the jury, where an offense involves the commission, or an attempt to commit private injury, and is described…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. McDermottIdaho Supreme Court · 1932
- State v. DaemsMontana Supreme Court · 1934
- State v. McKiernanNevada Supreme Court · 1882
- State v. WeaverSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- State v. PatchMontana Supreme Court · 1898