Jernigan v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Jernigan v. State

90 So. 699, 83 Fla. 74

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 So. 699 (Jernigan v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jernigan v. State, 90 So. 699, 83 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ctjriam.

The. indictment herein charges that the alleged forgery, by endorsement of a county warrant that was payable to Henry.Farrington, who had been employed by the accused to work for the county on the public roads, was committed or uttered by the accused “with intent to injure and defraud Henry Farrington and some person or persons to the grand jurors unknown.” The proofs show that the endorsement by the accused of Farrington’s name on the warrant, gnd the.collection of the money could not have injured Farrington, since the accused had before the warrant was issued paid Farrington all the county owed him and no intent to injure any other person is shown. If the warrant was at the instance of the defendant drawn for an amount in excess of the county’s indebtedness to Farrington, proof thereof would not sustain the charge as made. For the failure to prove an essential element of the oflense as alleged, the judgment must be and is hereby reversed.

Browne, C. J., and Tatlor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.

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

Per Ctjriam.

The. indictment herein charges that the alleged forgery, by endorsement of a county warrant that was payable to Henry.Farrington, who had been employed by the accused to work for the county on the public roads, was committed or uttered by the accused “with intent to injure and defraud Henry Farrington and some person or persons to the grand jurors unknown.” The proofs show that the endorsement by the accused of Farrington’s name on the warrant, gnd the.collection of the money could not have injured Farrington, since the accused had before the warrant was issued paid Farrington all the county owed him and no intent to injure any other person is shown. If the warrant was at the instance of the defendant drawn for an amount in excess of the county’s indebtedness to Farrington, proof thereof would not sustain the charge as made. For the failure to prove an essential element of the oflense as alleged, the judgment must be and is hereby reversed.

Browne, C. J., and Tatlor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 So. 699, 83 Fla. 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jernigan-v-state-fla-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack