Case ID: ga_88/html/0027-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Billups v. The State.
    Under section 4451 of the code, an indictment will lie for forging an instrument in the following terms: “Atlanta, Ga., May 9th, 1891. Mr. 'Williams: I will keep back two dollars a week from Bob’s wages until the debt that he owes you is paid. I will be responsible for the two dollars as long as he works for me. Besptly., Henry Akens the charge being that the act of forgery was done to defraud said Akens. This writing might have defrauded, or been used to defraud, Akens, and was therefore a subject-matter of forgery. Travis v. The State, 83 Ga. 372.
    November 2, 1891.
    Criminal law. Forgery. Before Judge Richard H. Clark. Fulton superior court. March, term, 1891.
    F. R. & J. G-. "Walker and J. T. Spence, for plaintiff in error,
    cited 72 Ga. 28; 24 Ga. 287; 62 Ga. 299; 51 Ga. 535; 79 Ga. 344; Whar Cr. L. §§661, 680, 686, 687, 696; Whar. Cr. Pl. & Pr. §§759, 765, notes.
    C. D. Hill, solicitor-general, contra,
    
    cited Code, §§4442, 4451; 11 Ga. 92; 59 Ga. 784; 62 Ga. 299, 301; 66 Ga. 53.
   Judgment affirmed.

On an indictment for forgery the jury found the defendant guilty, and he moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that the instrument alleged to have been forged (see the head-note) was not calculated to deceive or defraud any one; it was not an unconditional promise to pay money or other thing of value ; the labor or work by defendant was of the essence of the order; the writing, if it showed anything, showed that Akens only agreed to pay the debt of another upon' certain conditions, and nothing in the face of the writing or indictment showed that the conditions had been complied with; and nothing appeared on the face of the writing showing that, if true and properly published, the party purporting to have executed it would have been bound, and no liability was created on its face. The motion was overruled.