Thompson v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
From tlie Circuit Court of Marion. Tried before the Hon. 8. D. Hale. The prisoner .was indicted for the forgery of a promissory note for $50, wbicb. purported to be signed by "William Nice as maker, and wbicb. was set out literally in tlie indictment.
Read the full summary
From tlie Circuit Court of Marion. Tried before the Hon. 8. D. Hale. The prisoner .was indicted for the forgery of a promissory note for $50, wbicb. purported to be signed by "William Nice as maker, and wbicb. was set out literally in tlie indictment. On tlie trial, as the bill of exceptions discloses, tlie State offered in evidence a writing wbicli corresponded in every particular witb the alleged forged instrument, except tbat no name was signed to it; but, on tbe prisoner’s objection, tbe court excluded it from tbe jury. Tbe State tben introduced William Nice as a witness, wbo testified,…
1Opinion of the CourtRice, C. J.
The rules of evidence are distinct from the rules of pleading. Objections to jdeadings must be determined by the rules of pleading. Objections to evidence must be determined by the rules of evidence.— It is a general rule of pleading, that in an indictment for forgery, the instrument alleged to be forged should be set forth in words and figures, or that its tenor should be accurately stated. There are exceptions to- this rule, but we need not notice them in this case; for here the indictment is clearly in conformity with the general rule above stated, and the objection is not to the pleading,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Shipp v. SheltonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- People v. ChapmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- McGuire v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861
- Harrison v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- Hurst v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.