Morley v. State

242 S.W. 1055, 92 Tex. Crim. 282, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 432
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 21, 1922
DocketNo. 7087.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 S.W. 1055 (Morley 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
Morley v. State, 242 S.W. 1055, 92 Tex. Crim. 282, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 432 (Tex. 1922).

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Harris County of the offense of forgery, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception shown in the record. ■ Neither do there appear any objections to the law of the ease as contained in the charge of the trial court. We have carefully examined the facts. *283 Appellant did not testify. It was shown without dispute that on the occasion in question he gave to the prosecuting witness a check which bore a signature other than that of appellant, which check was turned down by the bank as being of one who had no account at such bank. The statement of facts seems to sustain the proposition that the name signed to said check was a fictitious one. The court submitted the law of both forgery and passing a forged instrument.

Believing the evidence sufficient to justify the verdict, and finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Hepworth v. State
120 S.W.2d 250 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 S.W. 1055, 92 Tex. Crim. 282, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morley-v-state-texcrimapp-1922.