Case ID: tenn_21/html/0347-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Reese, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen Snell vs. The State.
    In an indictment for forging a receipt, it is not necessary that it should be averred , that the person charged with the offence,is indebted to the individual against ■whom the receipt is forged, in order to show that the latter stands in a situation to be defrauded by the former.
    At the March term, 1840, the grand jury of the county of Henderson returned into court a bill of indictment against Stephen Snell in the following words:
    ‘‘^lendfrsonTounty, J Circuit court> March term> 1840’
    The grand jurors of the State of Tennessee, elected, empannell-ed, sworn and charged to enquire in and for the body of the county of Henderson aforesaid, upon their oaths present, that, Stephen Snell, late of the county of Henderson aforesaid, on the 1st day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine, with force and arms in the county aforesaid, feloniously and fraudulently did forge a certain receipt, which said forged receipt is in words and figures following, to wit:
    “Received of Stephen Snell, shei iff and tax collector, sixteen hundred dollars and ninety-five cents, part of the revenue for 1836,7. Hezekiah Bkadbejrky, Trustee for Henderson Co. Ten which said forged receipt is in the possession.of some one to the jurors unknown, with intent to defraud one Hezekiah Bradberry, trustee of the county of Henderson, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.
    And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, further present, that, said Stephen Snell, late of said county, yeoman, after-wards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at the county aforesaid, with force and arms, feloniously and fraudulently did offer, utter, dispose, of and put off a certain other forged receipt and acquittance for money, which said last mentioned forged acquittance and recept for money, is in the words and figures following, to wit:
    “Received of Stephen Snell, sheriff and tax-collector, sixteen hundred dollars and seventy-three cents, part of the revenue for 1836,-7. Hezekiah Bkabberry, Trustee for Henderson Go. Ten-'' which said receipt is in the possession of, or has been destroyed by the said Stephen Snell, with intent to defraud the said Hezekiah Bradberry, trustee of Henderson county aforesaid, he, the said Stephen Snell, at the time he so offered, uttered, disposed of and put off the said last mentioned forged receipt and acquittance for money as aforesaid, then and there, well knowing the same to be forged, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.”
    The third count, substantially in the form above set forth, charged that Snell was lawfully possessed of a genuine receipt executed by Bradberry as Trustee of Henderson county, to said Snell, as sheriff and tax-collector, for six hundred dollar's and seventy-three cents, for the year 1836, and that Snell forged and uttered this genuine receipt so as to make it read sixteen hundred dollars and seventy-three cents, part of the revenue for the years 1836 and 7, with intent to defraud Bradberry.
    The defendant pleaded not guilty and issue was taken thereupon. He was found guilty, by a jury of Henderson county, and his term of imprisonment in the jail and penitentiary house of the State fixed at three years.
    The defendant moved the court in arrest of judgment, but his Honor, William 0. Dunlap, presiding judge, overruled the motion, and passed sentence upon him in conformity with the finding of the jury. From this judgment the defendant appealed in error to this court.
    
      Huntsman & McLanahan, for plaintiff in error.
    The judgment should be arrested, because,
    1. It is not substantially averred in the indictment that Brad-berry was the lawful Trustee of the county of Henderson for the years 1836 and 1837, and in consequence thereof duly authorised to receive and give a receipt for the county taxes for said years to the sheriff and tax-collector.
    2. It is not substantially averred that said defendant was the sheriff and collector of the county taxes in said county of Henderson in the said years of 1836 and 7.
    3. The indictment does not set out and show, in what manner the defendant was bound to pay said Bradberry any money, or that he owed said Bradberry any money, either as trustee or otherwise.
    
      Attorney General, for the State.
   Reese, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

' This is an indictment for forgery. The forged instrument, as set out, is a receipt or acquittance in the following words, to wit: “Received of Stephen Snell, sheriff and tax-collector, sixteen hundred dollars and seventy-three cents, part of the revenue for 1836 and 1837. H. Bradberry, Trustee for Henderson county, Ten.” The first count avers that the defendant forged the above instrument with intent to defraud the above mentioned H. Bradberry; the second count, that he uttered and passed the above forged instrument, knowing it to have been forged, with intent to defraud, &c.; and the third count that he feloniously altered a genuine receipt and acquittance as follows, to wit: “Received of Stephen Snell, Sheriff and tax-collector, six hundred dollars and seventy-three cents; part of the revenue for 1836. H. Bradberry, Trustee for Henderson county, Ten.,” to read as above set forth, with the like fraudulent intent. The defendant was convicted on all the counts, and has prosecuted his appeal to this coürt, and here the grounds of error assigned on his behalf, in argument, are, that the indictment does not show that he was sheriff and tax-collector for Henderson county for the years 1836 and 7; or that Bradberry was trustee in these years for that county, or was entitled to claim or demand money of the defendant on any ground. The indictment alleges, the forgery, and the alteration of the acquittance; and that they were with intent to defraud Bradberry. But this, it is said, is not sufficient. The objections, taken together, amount to this, that a liability, personal or official on the part of defendant to pay money to Bradberry should have been alleged in the indictment, in order to show that the latter was in a situation, or stood in a relation to the prisoner, so as to be defrauded by the false making of the instrument. But certainly this assumption is founded in error; for the liability of Bradberry to be injured and defrauded by the false making of the instrument, is not confined to the case of the prisoner’s indebtedness to him, for upon the supposition of non-indebtedness, he would be liable to the claim and action of the prisoner for the money acknowledged to have been received. It is believed not to be necessary in an indictment for forgery, to show the various modes In which the false instrument might be used so as as to injure and defraud the person who purports to have made it. It has been holden that it is sufficient to aver a general intent to defraud a certain person, which intention may be made out by the facts in evidence at the trial. 2 Russell on Crimes: 1 Leach 77.

The case of Rice vs. The State, 1 Yer., has been referred to as sustaining the views of prisoner’s counsel; a slight intimation of an opinion is there given that the indebtedness of the prisoner ta the person purporting to have made the receipt, should have been alleged. But that point was not decided. The case went off on another ground. In the case of Walton vs. The State, 6 Yer. 377, the decision was made to turn upon the form and character of the instrument; and the case, whether rightly decided or not, does not bear upon the one before us. Upon the whole, we are of opinion there is no error in the record, and we affirm the j udgment.