Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0774-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 997
    No. 19667
    State of Ohio v. Hearne.
    Exceptions to the Court of Conimon Pleas of Hamilton county.
    1226. VARIANCE — Where proof shows that defendant forged name of payee on check with intent to defraud, etc.; and indictment charges him with “unlawfully, falsely making, forging and counterfeiting a certain check” with intent to defraud, not sufficient variance as to warrant a directed verdict of not guilty.
   DAY, J.

Upon trial under an indictment charging “unlawfully, falsely making, forging and counterfeiting a certain check” with intent to defraud, and the uttering and publishing thereof, proof that the offense consisted in the defendant forging the name of the payee on the back of such check, with intent to defraud and uttering and publishing the same with like intent, does not constitute such a variance as to justify a directed verdict of not guilty.

Exceptions sustained.

Marshall, CJ., Jones and Allen, JJ., concur.