State v. Allen
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before TOWNSEND, J., Dorchesteir, May, 1899. Indictment against C. J. Allen for forgery. From sentence on verdict of guilty, defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Before TOWNSEND, J., Dorchesteir, May, 1899. Indictment against C. J. Allen for forgery. From sentence on verdict of guilty, defendant appeals. Mr. Gruber cites : Indictment should have charged the act done feloniously or with feloniotis intent: 5 Stat., 397; 11 Stat., 341; 8 Rich., 21; 5 Strob., 66; 2 Treadway, 759. Evidence tending to show forgery and uttering other instruments improperly admitted: 2 Treadway, 758. Harper, 39, has no application. 1 Bail., 300; 2 Rich., 418, not in conflict zvith our contention. 35 N. E. R., 145; 49 Mass.,235; 59 N. Y.,557; 84 N. Y., 480; 56 N. Y., 363.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
The defendant, C. J. Allen, was tried and convicted of the crime of forgery under an indictment containing two counts' — one alleging, in the words of the statute, the forgery of a certain writing and instrument of writing, and the other alleging the uttering of said forged writing. After sentence, he has appealed from such judgment. While his exceptions, as printed, number twenty-two, he has reduced that number by abandoning exceptions 6, 7, 8 and 9, and also abandoning exceptions 14, 15 and 16, and these need not be set out as…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. LyleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
- State v. BighamSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- Cit. Bk. of Darlington v. McDonaldSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1943
- State v. TalleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- Cooper v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1923
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.