Glover v. Dorsey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Glover v. Dorsey

107 S.E. 594, 27 Ga. App. 105, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 720

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 6, 1921

Docket11968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 594 (Glover v. Dorsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glover v. Dorsey, 107 S.E. 594, 27 Ga. App. 105, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 720 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The provisions of the Penal Code (1910), § 242, declaring it a crime for any person to have in his possession any false, forged, counterfeit, or altered check, as therein described, with intention fraudulently to pass the same, has reference to a cheek only upon a bank of this State or an incorporated bank whose notes or bills are in circulation in this State. This section is in pari materia with section 238 of the Penal Code. See Penal Code of 1833 (Ga. L. 1833, p. 167, §§ 3-7) ; Penal Code of 1817 (Lamar’s Digest, 629, §§ 49-53); Penal Code of 1816 (Lamar’s Digest, 584, §§ 56-60).'

(a) It follows, therefore, that an indictment which charges a person with having in his possession a false, forged, counterfeit, or altered check, with intention fraudulently to pass the same, but which does not allege that such check was on a bank of this State or on an incorporated bank whose notes or bills are in circulation in this State, is fatally defective and sets out no offense against the penal laws of this State.

2. “ Sureties upon a criminal recognizance may set up, in defense to a scire facias to forfeit the same, that the indictment against their principal is fatally defective, in that it fails to charge any offense against the penal statutes of the State.” Candler v. Kirksey, 113 Ga. 309 (38 S. E. 825, 84 Am. St. R. 247).

3. This being a scire facias upon a criminal recognizance wheré the sureties defended upon the ground that the indictment contained a charge as set out above, in paragraph 1 (a), and was therefore fatally defective, in that it failed to set out an offense against the penal laws of the State, it was error to strike, on demurrer, that part of the defendants’ plea setting up this defense.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur

Forfeiture of recognizance; from Colquitt superior court — Judge Thomas. October 14, 19.20.

A. J. McDonald, Dowling & Askew, for plaintiff in error. Clifford E. Hay, contra.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The provisions of the Penal Code (1910), § 242, declaring it a crime for any person to have in his possession any false, forged, counterfeit, or altered check, as therein described, with intention fraudulently to pass the same, has reference to a cheek only upon a bank of this State or an incorporated bank whose notes or bills are in circulation in this State. This section is in pari materia with section 238 of the Penal Code. See Penal Code of 1833 (Ga. L. 1833, p. 167, §§ 3-7) ; Penal Code of 1817 (Lamar’s Digest, 629, §§ 49-53); Penal Code of 1816 (Lamar’s Digest, 584, §§ 56-60).'

(a) It follows, therefore, that an indictment which charges a person with having in his possession a false, forged, counterfeit, or altered check, with intention fraudulently to pass the same, but which does not allege that such check was on a bank of this State or on an incorporated bank whose notes or bills are in circulation in this State, is fatally defective and sets out no offense against the penal laws of this State.

2. “ Sureties upon a criminal recognizance may set up, in defense to a scire facias to forfeit the same, that the indictment against their principal is fatally defective, in that it fails to charge any offense against the penal statutes of the State.” Candler v. Kirksey, 113 Ga. 309 (38 S. E. 825, 84 Am. St. R. 247).

3. This being a scire facias upon a criminal recognizance wheré the sureties defended upon the ground that the indictment contained a charge as set out above, in paragraph 1 (a), and was therefore fatally defective, in that it failed to set out an offense against the penal laws of the State, it was error to strike, on demurrer, that part of the defendants’ plea setting up this defense.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur

Forfeiture of recognizance; from Colquitt superior court — Judge Thomas. October 14, 19.20.

A. J. McDonald, Dowling & Askew, for plaintiff in error. Clifford E. Hay, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 594, 27 Ga. App. 105, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-dorsey-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack