Johnson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnson v. State

136 S.E. 329, 36 Ga. App. 310, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 48

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1927

Docket17779

StatusPublished

This text of 136 S.E. 329 (Johnson v. State) 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

Johnson v. State, 136 S.E. 329, 36 Ga. App. 310, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 48 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The instrument charged to have been forged was commonly known as a “salary assignment.” It consisted of two parts, the first part being entitled “Application to sell salary or wage account,” [311]*311and the second part being the salary assignment. In this second part it is directed that the Southern Railway Company pay the amount of $16 to Citizens Finance Company; and the instrument recites that that amount is due by the Southern Railway Company to the maker of the instrument, who is also an employee of that company, for salary already earned. The second part, therefore, is clearly an “order for money,” within the meaning of subsection 7 of section 231 of the Penal Code of 1910; and the first part could properly be treated as surplusage, as the gist of the offense is the forging of the order for the payment of the money.. (No demurrer to the indictment was interposed.) See, in this connection, Hoskins v. State, 11 Ga. 92 (5), 100; Gibson v. State, 79 Ga. 344 (3), 346 (5 S. E. 76); Johnson v. State, 62 Ga. 300 (2); Chambers v. State, 22 Ga. App. 748 (1), 752 (97 S. E. 256).

Decided January 11, 1927. J. S. Hall, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, J. W. LeCraw, contra.

2. Under the above-stated ruling the verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The instrument charged to have been forged was commonly known as a “salary assignment.” It consisted of two parts, the first part being entitled “Application to sell salary or wage account,” [311]*311and the second part being the salary assignment. In this second part it is directed that the Southern Railway Company pay the amount of $16 to Citizens Finance Company; and the instrument recites that that amount is due by the Southern Railway Company to the maker of the instrument, who is also an employee of that company, for salary already earned. The second part, therefore, is clearly an “order for money,” within the meaning of subsection 7 of section 231 of the Penal Code of 1910; and the first part could properly be treated as surplusage, as the gist of the offense is the forging of the order for the payment of the money.. (No demurrer to the indictment was interposed.) See, in this connection, Hoskins v. State, 11 Ga. 92 (5), 100; Gibson v. State, 79 Ga. 344 (3), 346 (5 S. E. 76); Johnson v. State, 62 Ga. 300 (2); Chambers v. State, 22 Ga. App. 748 (1), 752 (97 S. E. 256).

Decided January 11, 1927. J. S. Hall, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, J. W. LeCraw, contra.

2. Under the above-stated ruling the verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 329, 36 Ga. App. 310, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack