Davis v. State

29 S.W. 478, 34 Tex. Crim. 117, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 6, 1895
DocketNo. 672.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 29 S.W. 478 (Davis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. State, 29 S.W. 478, 34 Tex. Crim. 117, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33 (Tex. 1895).

Opinion

DAVIDSOH, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of passing a forged instrument in writing—a check—which purported to have been executed by 0. Bisman in favor of appellant. He passed the check to W. P. Seibert, stating at the time that Dock Bison (C. D. Bison) had given it to him. Seibert cashed the check for the amount called for upon its face. Bison did not execute it, nor authorize its execution, and this the appellant knew. Appellant’s representations in regard to the check were false, and there was no contradiction in the testimony upon this point. Bisman was, under the facts, a fictitious person. The charge of the court was correct, and distinctly set forth the law applicable to the evidence. Barnwell v. The State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 745; Brewer v. The State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 74.

Appellant requested the court to charge the jury, that if “defendant made the check in question, and wrote the words ‘C. Bisman,’ yet if, when he so wrote that name, he believed he was writing the name of ‘0. D. Bison,’ but by mistake wrote ‘0. Bisman,’ intending it for the name of the real person, to wit, that of C. D. Bison,” he should be acquitted. He had no authority to sign the name of C. D. Bison to the check, and knew he had no such authority. Under the facts stated, he was guilty, and should have been convicted, and not acquitted. Authorities above cited.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.

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

Related

Thompson v. State
106 S.W.2d 711 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Cobb v. State
286 S.W. 1086 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Carter v. State
136 S.W. 47 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Boswell v. State
127 S.W. 820 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1910)
Feeney v. State
124 S.W. 944 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1910)
Spicer v. State
106 S.W. 813 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 S.W. 478, 34 Tex. Crim. 117, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-texcrimapp-1895.