Hicken v. State
96 Ga. 759
This text of 96 Ga. 759 (Hicken v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Hicken v. State, 96 Ga. 759 (Ga. 1894).
Opinion
An indictment charging that the accused did “ make and forge the following check for money, to wit:
‘No. 26. Marietta, Ga., July 17th, 1894.
‘The First National Bank pay to the order of Mrs. Anna Lyons twenty-five dollars 00-100.
‘ $25-1°0V E. O. Henderson,’
meaning O. E. Henderson of the firm of Henderson and Austin,” etc., is not a good indictment for forgery. It does not charge the forgery of the name of any person alleged to be actually in existence, but at most only charges a mere intention to forge the name of a real person bearing the name of O. E. Henderson, and shows on its face that this intention failed of accomplishment.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Grier v. State
13 S.E.2d 909 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
96 Ga. 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicken-v-state-ga-1894.