Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/State v. Harroun

State v. Harroun

98 S.W. 467, 199 Mo. 519, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 330
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided December 2, 1906·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

BURGESS, P. J.

The defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Buchanan county of forgery in the third degree and his punishment fixed at five years imprisonment in the penitentiary under an indictment preferred against him by the grand jury of said county charging him with falsely making a bill of lading purporting to be the act of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, a corporation, for the carriage and transportation of sixty thousand pounds of wheat of the value of five hundred dollars, from St. Joseph, Missouri, to Chicago, Illinois, with the intent to cheat and defraud. After unavailing motions for a new trial and in arrest, defendant appeals.

Hon. B. J. Casteel, the regular judge of said court, being disqualified, the Hon. A. D. Burnes, judge of the fifth judicial circuit, was called in by him to try the cause.

The facts are about as follows: The defendant at the time of and for some time prior to the commission of the alleged offense was engaged in the grain and elevator business .at St. Joseph, Mo. During all this time W. K. Adams was the local freight agent of said company at said city and one W. E. Mueller, was the chief clerk in Adams’ office; it was customary when freight was received by said railroad company for Mr. [522] Adams to execute a bill of lading therefor, signing the name “W, K. Adams, freight agent, per M.,” thereto; sometimes the bill of lading was signed “W. K. Adams., freight agent, per Mueller,” and sometimes W. K. Adams, freight agent, M.” The State’s evidence tended to show that a number of bills of lading were forged by the defendant, including the one described in the indictment, and that the defendant admitted to various officers of said railroad company that he had forged said bills of lading, some of which were in possession of other persons not known to the defendant. These statements, were made by the defendant at the office of the general freight agent of the Burlington road, at St. Joseph, at the defendant’s residence in St. Joseph, and at another place in St. Joseph. He asked these gentlemen to keep the matter quiet and to suppress a certain telegram that had been received in regard to a certain outstanding forgery. Defendant gave the railroad officers a list, which list showed that bills had been forged for freight worth $124,000'. He then took a pen and, in the presence of Judge O. M. Spencer and others, showed how he could imitate the signature of Mr. Adams as signed by Mueller. It afterwards developed that said bills of lading, instead of amounting to freight worth $124,000, in reality amounted to $156,-000. Adams and Mueller both testified that the signature to the bill of lading described in the indictment was not signed by Mr. Mueller.

The defendant’s evidence tended to show that while he had been guilty of forging other bills of lading and warehouse receipts, he did not forge the one described in the indictment; and that the Burlington Railroad Company never lost anything by reason of said alleged forgery. He also introduced evidence tending to show that he enjoyed a good reputation for honesty and integrity prior to and since the commission of the alleged crime. The defendant’s evidence further tended to show that Mueller, a witness for the State, had [523] made contradictory statements and had made conflicting statements in his efforts to distinguish between the alleged forged bill of lading and others which were genuine.

The indictment, leaving off the formal parts, is as follows:

“The grand jurors of the State of Missouri, within and for the body of the county of Buchanan aforesaid, being duly empaneled and sworn, upon their oaths do present that W. H; Harroun, on the 2nd day of September, 1904, at the county of Buchanan and State aforesaid, feloniously did falsely make and forge a certain instrument of writing and bill of lading purporting to be the act of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, a corporation incorporated under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Iowa, by one W. K. Adams, its agent and servant, having authority so to do, the said W. K. Adams acting by one W. A. Mueller, the said W. A. Mueller ■ having authority thereof, he, the said W. A. Mueller, being then and there the servant and agent of said corporation' and said W. K. Adams. And the said purported act of said Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, by its agents and servants, said W. K. Adams and said W. A. Mueller, to-wit, the said false and forged instrument of writing and' bill of lading, purported to have created and transferred a pecuniary demand and obligation for the payment of sixty thous- and pounds of wheat of the value of five hundred dollars, and the right of property in and to said wheat purported to be transferred and conveyed by the said Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, which said false and forged instrument of writing and bill of lading is of the tenor following, to-wit:

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

State v. Harroun, 98 S.W. 467, 199 Mo. 519, 1906 Mo. LEXIS 330 (Mo. 1906).

98 S.W. 467 (State v. Harroun) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Wade
815 S.W.2d 489 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)
State Ex Rel. County of Shannon v. Chilton
626 S.W.2d 426 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1981)
State v. Harris
313 S.W.2d 664 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1958)
State v. Curtis
172 S.W. 619 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1915)
State v. Flynn
167 S.W. 516 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
State v. Maurer
164 S.W. 551 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
State v. Chissell
150 S.W. 1066 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
State v. Dargatz
148 S.W. 889 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
State v. Clinkenbeard
125 S.W. 827 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
State v. Currier
125 S.W. 461 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Theatre Co.
100 S.W. 627 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)