Eldridge v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Lee county. Hon. E. O. Sykes, Judge. Eldridge was convicted of forgery on an indictment containing two counts. The first count charges him with forging, with intent to defraud one F. Elliott, an order of the following tenor and effect: “July 21, 1898. “Mr. F. Elliott: You will please let bearer have the sum of ®7 and forty cents in money. I ever he wants, and charge tome. Yours truly, " Hussey.”
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Lee county. Hon. E. O. Sykes, Judge. Eldridge was convicted of forgery on an indictment containing two counts. The first count charges him with forging, with intent to defraud one F. Elliott, an order of the following tenor and effect: “July 21, 1898. “Mr. F. Elliott: You will please let bearer have the sum of ®7 and forty cents in money. I ever he wants, and charge tome. Yours truly, " Hussey.” The second count charges that he had in his possession, with intent to utter as true, a forged order of the following tenor and effect: “July 21, 1898. “Mr. F. Elliott: You…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, J.
It is clear that no conviction could have been had in this case, on the testimony in the record, under the first count. Neither of the orders offered in evidence was the one passed on Elliott. Can the conviction be sustained on the proof here, under the second count? That count charges that appellant, having in his possession, etc., with the intent to utter and publish the same as true, and with the intent to defraud the *355said Elliott, etc. Doubtless the proof of the specific intent here charged may be “inferred from the circumstances of the possession,” as stated in 2 McLain’s Crim. Law,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Criddle v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1964
- Hays v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1949