State v. Lurch
Oregon Supreme Court
Lane County. Defendant appeals; This was an indictment charging the appellant with knowingly uttering, etc., to one S. H. Friendly, a forged note, purporting to be the note of J. "V. Thornton.
Read the full summary
Lane County. Defendant appeals; This was an indictment charging the appellant with knowingly uttering, etc., to one S. H. Friendly, a forged note, purporting to be the note of J. "V. Thornton. On the trial the State produced said Thornton as a witness, to show by him that he had not signed the note in question, nor authorized the defendant to do so for him.' After the defendant 'had rested, the plaintiff recalled Thornton, had him write his name to be compared with the signature to the note, and submitted his name so written to the jury. S. H. Friendly called for the prosecution, testified…
1Opinion of the Court
Thayer, J.—Among
the several grounds of error assigned in this case, there are three which deserve especial notice, viz.: Whether the promissory note alleged to have been forged was uttered or published as true and genuine, with intent to injure or defraud anyone, within the meaning of section 592 of the Criminal Code; whether the court had the right to require the appellant, when upon the stand as a witness, to testify to facts he had not testified to in his direct examination, and to write his name, and that of Lurch Bros., and also of J. V. Thornton; and whether it was proper to recall said…
2Cited by14 opinions
- State v. SaundersOregon Supreme Court · 1886
- State v. BartmessOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- People v. ArrighiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Tucker v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
- State v. JensenOregon Supreme Court · 1914
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.