Case ID: sw2d_42/html/1026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LANDRUM v. STATE.
    No. 14385.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 28, 1931.
    W. T. Davis, of San Augustine, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted for the forgery of. an indorsement on a check, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The charging part of the indictment avers that appellant did “ * * * without lawful authority, and with the intent to injure and defraud, willfully and fraudulently make a false instrument in writing purporting to be the act of another, to-wit: the act of E. L. Henry, which said instrument to the tenor following:

“San Augustine, Texas, - 192 — ■, -- No.-.
“Silsbee State Bank of Silsbee, Texas. Pay to Cash or bearer $7.50 Seven & 50/100 Dollars
“C. E. Landrum.
“On back thereof, E. L. Henry.”

The evidence appears undisputed that appellant wrote the check in question, and therefore, if there was any forgery, it consisted of the unauthorized placing of Henry’s name on the-back thereof as an indorsement. There are no averments in the indictment which make it plain that it was the purpose and intent of the pleader to charge the forgery of said indorsement. The very question controlling was discussed at length in the recent case of Cochran v. State, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 201, 30 S.W.(2d) 316. See, also, Miller v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 34 S. W. 267; McBride v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 257, 246 S. W. 394; Pierce v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 604, 44 S. W. 292; Gumpert v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 492, 228 S. W. 237; Cofer v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 125, 295 S. W. 189, and authorities therein cited. Also Bishop’s New Crim. Proc. vol. 3, (2d Ed.) § 410, p. 1472.

It being evident from the record that it was the purpose of the pleader to charge a forgery of the indorsement and being insufficient for that. purpose, the judgment must be reversed and the prosecution dismissed, and it is so ordered. If further prosecution should be desired, it must be under a new indictment.