Reddick v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Reddick v. State

21 S.W. 684, 31 Tex. Crim. 587, 1893 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 176

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 18, 1893

DocketNo. 161.

StatusPublished

This text of 21 S.W. 684 (Reddick 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

Reddick v. State, 21 S.W. 684, 31 Tex. Crim. 587, 1893 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 176 (Tex. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

HURT, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of knowingly passing as true a forged instrument. The order read as follows:

“July 13, 1892.

" Mr. Lane :

“ Please let the bearer have $2.50 worth of goods, and charge the same to me.

[Signed] - “ J. H. Cole.”

Counsel for appellant moved to quash the indictment, because the instrument was not valid upon its face, and such as would sustain a civil' action without recurring to extrinsic evidence. This objection is not well taken. Hendricks v. The State, 26 Texas Ct. App., 176.

This case was tried at the January Term, 1893, of the District Court of Hunt County'. Prior to this conviction, appellant had been tried and acquitted of forging the same instrument. The indictment upon which the acquittal was had contained but one count, and that was for the forgery. In bar to this prosecution appellant pleaded the former acquittal. Appellant can not plead former acquittal under the above facts. Appellant was not in jeopardy, because he could not have been convicted for passing a forged instrument under an indictment which charged the forgery only. A person may not be guilty of forging an instrument, but may be guilty of passing the same instrument. There is no error in the record as presented to us, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Simkins, J., absent.

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

HURT, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of knowingly passing as true a forged instrument. The order read as follows:

“July 13, 1892.

" Mr. Lane :

“ Please let the bearer have $2.50 worth of goods, and charge the same to me.

[Signed] - “ J. H. Cole.”

Counsel for appellant moved to quash the indictment, because the instrument was not valid upon its face, and such as would sustain a civil' action without recurring to extrinsic evidence. This objection is not well taken. Hendricks v. The State, 26 Texas Ct. App., 176.

This case was tried at the January Term, 1893, of the District Court of Hunt County'. Prior to this conviction, appellant had been tried and acquitted of forging the same instrument. The indictment upon which the acquittal was had contained but one count, and that was for the forgery. In bar to this prosecution appellant pleaded the former acquittal. Appellant can not plead former acquittal under the above facts. Appellant was not in jeopardy, because he could not have been convicted for passing a forged instrument under an indictment which charged the forgery only. A person may not be guilty of forging an instrument, but may be guilty of passing the same instrument. There is no error in the record as presented to us, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Simkins, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 S.W. 684, 31 Tex. Crim. 587, 1893 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reddick-v-state-texcrimapp-1893.