People v. Oubridge

California Supreme Court

People v. Oubridge

56 P. 442, 6 Cal. Unrep. 241, 1899 Cal. LEXIS 1161

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1899

DocketCr. No. 499

StatusPublished

This text of 56 P. 442 (People v. Oubridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Oubridge, 56 P. 442, 6 Cal. Unrep. 241, 1899 Cal. LEXIS 1161 (Cal. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has been convicted of the crime of forgery, and now prosecutes an appeal to this court.

It is contended that a fatal variance exists between the allegations of the information and the proof, in this: that it is alleged the forged signature to the check is “Ned Forester,” while the check, upop„its face, shows the signature to be “Ned Forestns. ’ ’ There is no merit in the contention. It is not at all apparent from an inspection of the check that the signature is “Ned Forestns.” It might readily answer to the call of other signatures equally with that of “Forestns.” There was expert testimony tending to show that the signature was “Forester,” and, in addition to that testimony, the jury had the check before them for personal inspection. Under this evidence of the expert, and from personal inspection, the jury, by their verdict, declared the signature was “Forester,” and this court will not disturb that finding of fact. No other point is made by defendant upon his appeal, and for the foregoing reasons the judgment and orders appealed from are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant has been convicted of the crime of forgery, and now prosecutes an appeal to this court.

It is contended that a fatal variance exists between the allegations of the information and the proof, in this: that it is alleged the forged signature to the check is “Ned Forester,” while the check, upop„its face, shows the signature to be “Ned Forestns. ’ ’ There is no merit in the contention. It is not at all apparent from an inspection of the check that the signature is “Ned Forestns.” It might readily answer to the call of other signatures equally with that of “Forestns.” There was expert testimony tending to show that the signature was “Forester,” and, in addition to that testimony, the jury had the check before them for personal inspection. Under this evidence of the expert, and from personal inspection, the jury, by their verdict, declared the signature was “Forester,” and this court will not disturb that finding of fact. No other point is made by defendant upon his appeal, and for the foregoing reasons the judgment and orders appealed from are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 P. 442, 6 Cal. Unrep. 241, 1899 Cal. LEXIS 1161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oubridge-cal-1899.