Case ID: sw_242/html/1055-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MORLEY v. STATE.
    (No. 7087.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 21, 1922.)
    Forgery &wkey;>44(l) — Evidence held to sustain conviction.
    Where it was shown without’ dispute that accused gave prosecuting witness a check bearing the signature of one other than accused, which check was dishonored at the bank as being of one who had there no account, and the court submitted the law of both forgery and uttering a forged instrument, held sufficient to justify conviction of forgery.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    R. H. Morley was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for .the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Harris county of the offense of forgery, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception shown in the record. Neither' do there appear any ob-jec lions to the law of the case as contained in the charge of the trial court. We have carefully examined the facts. Appellant did not testify. It was shown without dispute that on the occasion in question he gave to the prosecuting witness a check which bore a signature other than that of appellant, which, check was turned down by the bank as being of one who had no account at such bank. The statement of facts seems to sustain the proposition that the name signed to said check was a fictitious one. The court submitted the law of both forgery and passing a forged instrument.

Believing the evidence sufficient to justify the verdict, and finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered. 
      <&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes