Home/Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas/Daily v. State

Daily v. State

122 S.W.2d 628, 135 Tex. Crim. 655, 1938 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 853
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided December 21, 1938·No. No. 20061.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Krueger, Judge.

The offense is knowingly passing a forged instrument; the punishment assessed is confinement in the State Penitentiary for a term of four years.

The appellant’s only contention is that the court erred in declining to quash the indictment, which contained two counts. The first count charged forgery and the second (being the one upon which he was convicted) knowingly passing a forged instrument. Omitting the formal parts, the second count reads as follows:

“ * * * That one Bob 0." Daily hereinafter styled Defendant, in the County of Tarrant and State aforesaid, heretofore, on the 28th day of August in the year of our Lord, One Thousand, Nine Hundred Thirty-seven did then and there wilfully, knowingly and fraudulently pass and attempt to pass as true to one Gertrude Medford a false and forged instrument in writing which had theretofore been made without lawful authority, and with intent to injure and defraud, which said false and forged instrument in writing was then and there of the tenor as follows, to-wit:

EkNpHnGu2XwVlwcxIM3niQpApCLim3PAKTrfPTYw6D7S5E3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Daily v. State, 122 S.W.2d 628, 135 Tex. Crim. 655, 1938 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 853 (Tex. 1938).

122 S.W.2d 628 (Daily v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anderson v. State
445 S.W.2d 752 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Rivas v. State
336 S.W.2d 938 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Gordon v. State
137 S.W.2d 1023 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1940)