Inman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Inman v. State

30 S.W. 219, 35 Tex. Crim. 36, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 202

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 20, 1895

DocketNo. 565.

StatusPublished

This text of 30 S.W. 219 (Inman 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

Inman v. State, 30 S.W. 219, 35 Tex. Crim. 36, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 202 (Tex. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

HENDERSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for forgery. The indictment contained three counts—the first charging forgery; the second, passing a forged instrument; and the third, having possession of a forged instrument with intent to pass the same. The defendant interposed a plea of former acquittal. It appears from the record that appellant had been tried and convicted for forging an altogether different note from the one set forth in the indictment in this case. Upon motion of the State, this plea was stricken out. In this case the court acted correctly, and no authorities are required to sustain the court’s action. The first count of the indictment, that which charged forgery, is sufficient. There is no variance between the note set out in the indictment and that introduced in evidence. The original note is before us, and Z. W. Leather-wood’s name clearly appears to be signed to it. There are a number of bills of exceptions in the record j)ertaining to other matters. The charge of the court was the law of the case, and there was no error in neglect *38 ing those offered by the defendant. The State had a right to prove that Leatherwood’s name was written plainly upon the note at the time it was executed, and by wear and tear had been somewhat dimmed and obliterated. We have carefully examined the record, and find no error requiring a reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

, Affirmed.

HURT, P. J. absent.

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

HENDERSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for forgery. The indictment contained three counts—the first charging forgery; the second, passing a forged instrument; and the third, having possession of a forged instrument with intent to pass the same. The defendant interposed a plea of former acquittal. It appears from the record that appellant had been tried and convicted for forging an altogether different note from the one set forth in the indictment in this case. Upon motion of the State, this plea was stricken out. In this case the court acted correctly, and no authorities are required to sustain the court’s action. The first count of the indictment, that which charged forgery, is sufficient. There is no variance between the note set out in the indictment and that introduced in evidence. The original note is before us, and Z. W. Leather-wood’s name clearly appears to be signed to it. There are a number of bills of exceptions in the record j)ertaining to other matters. The charge of the court was the law of the case, and there was no error in neglect *38 ing those offered by the defendant. The State had a right to prove that Leatherwood’s name was written plainly upon the note at the time it was executed, and by wear and tear had been somewhat dimmed and obliterated. We have carefully examined the record, and find no error requiring a reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

, Affirmed.

HURT, P. J. absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 S.W. 219, 35 Tex. Crim. 36, 1895 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inman-v-state-texcrimapp-1895.