Mackguire v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Mackguire v. State

44 So. 802, 91 Miss. 151

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 44 So. 802 (Mackguire v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mackguire v. State, 44 So. 802, 91 Miss. 151 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Whitfield, G- I-,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The writing in this case is one of which, on its face, forgery could be predicated under our statute. It is, on its face, of apparent legal efficacy. France v. State, 83 Miss., 281, 35 South., 313. And for that reason it was unnecessary to state in the indictment any extrinsic facts. Bishop’s Directions & [155]*155Forms, 470. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellee (State v. Leak, 80 N. C., 403, and Russell v. State [Fla.], 40 South., 625), are not in point. The North Carolina case was a plain case, of a simple order for the delivery of goods — of course, wholly unlike the one here. It appears from the face of the order here that it was made upon the American Express Company, a common carrier, bound to deliver the property in its charge to the consignee named. It further appears that the consignee was William Foster, and that the jug was his property — “my jug.” In Russell v. State (Fla.), 40 South., 625, “ Mr. Crutch ” was wholly unidentified. It could not possibly be known that J. L. Crutchfield was intended by “ Mr. Crutch,” and hence the necessity for alleging extrinsic facts sufficient to identify “ Mr. Crutch ” as T. L. Crutchfield.

It was not necessary to allege the intent to defraud to have been felonious. 2 Bishop’s Procedure, § 401. The amendment was properly allowed. The identity of the offense was in no wise changed, and the continuance was properly denied. There could have been no surprise.

Affirmed.

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

Whitfield, G- I-,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The writing in this case is one of which, on its face, forgery could be predicated under our statute. It is, on its face, of apparent legal efficacy. France v. State, 83 Miss., 281, 35 South., 313. And for that reason it was unnecessary to state in the indictment any extrinsic facts. Bishop’s Directions & [155]*155Forms, 470. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellee (State v. Leak, 80 N. C., 403, and Russell v. State [Fla.], 40 South., 625), are not in point. The North Carolina case was a plain case, of a simple order for the delivery of goods — of course, wholly unlike the one here. It appears from the face of the order here that it was made upon the American Express Company, a common carrier, bound to deliver the property in its charge to the consignee named. It further appears that the consignee was William Foster, and that the jug was his property — “my jug.” In Russell v. State (Fla.), 40 South., 625, “ Mr. Crutch ” was wholly unidentified. It could not possibly be known that J. L. Crutchfield was intended by “ Mr. Crutch,” and hence the necessity for alleging extrinsic facts sufficient to identify “ Mr. Crutch ” as T. L. Crutchfield.

It was not necessary to allege the intent to defraud to have been felonious. 2 Bishop’s Procedure, § 401. The amendment was properly allowed. The identity of the offense was in no wise changed, and the continuance was properly denied. There could have been no surprise.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 So. 802, 91 Miss. 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackguire-v-state-miss-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack