Case ID: ala_117/html/0169-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "COLEMAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Agee v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Forgery.
    "3.. Indictment; inquiry into evidence before the grand jury. — When it- appears that a competent witness was sworn and examined before the grand jury, by which the indictment was preferred, a motion to quash the indictment on the ground that it was found on insufficient or illegal evidence, can not be entertained.
    2. Forgery, sufficiency of indictment.— It is not necessary, in describing in an indictment an instrument alleged to have been forged, that the hand-writing be precisely copied.
    3. Same; immaterial variance. — On a trial under an indictment for forgery, a varian.ee in the date Of the instrument alleged to have been forged, in that as described in the indictment it was dated “Oct. 18, 1895,” while the date as stated in the instrument itself was “Oct. the 18 1895,” is immaterial and will be disregarded.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Wilcox.
    Tried before the Hon. John Moore.
    ■The appellant in this case was tried and convicted under the following indictment: ‘-‘The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment, Reuben Agee did, with the intent to injure or defraud, falsely make, alter, forge or counterfeit an instrument in writing, in words and figures substantially as follows, to-wit: ‘Oct. 18, 1895. Lamison ala. Mr. J-. T. Dumas. Dear Sir Please lete Kinge Jackison trade nine dollars $975 cents nine dollars 75 cents to bee chird to E 0 Raines on mchindise,’ meaning thereby to write an order on J. T. Dumas, dated the 18th Oct-:, 1895, from E. 0. Raines, and by .said E. 0. Raines for King Jackson, for nine dollars and seventy-five cents.”
    ‘‘The grand jury-of said-county further charge that before the finding of this indictment, Reuben Agee did, -with intent to - injure or defraud, alter and publish as true a falsely made, altered, forged or counterfeited instrument in writing, in words and figures substantially as follow's, to-wit: ‘Oct. 18, 1895. Lamison, ala. Mr. J. T..Dumas. Dear Sir-Please lete Kinge Jackison trade nine dollars $975 cents nine dollars 75 cents to bee chird to E. 0. Raines on mchindise,’ meaning thereby an order on J. T. Dumas, dated October 18th, 1895, from E. 0. Raines and by said E. Q. Raines, for King Jackson, for nine dollars and seventy-five cents in merchandise to be charged to said E. 0. Raines, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.”
    The defendant demurred to this indictment upon the grounds, 1st, That the instrument alleged to be forged and set out in the indictment does not purport to create a pecuniary liability, nor does it' show that another might be injured by it; 2d, that the instrument alleged to have been forged has no signature or name signed to it. This demurrer was overruled. The defendant moved the court to quash the indictment upon the ground that there was not sufficient legal evidence before the grand jury to find the indictment. Upon the hearing of this motion, the defendant introduced E. 0. Raines as a witness, and offered to examine him as to what he had testified to before the grand jury, for the purpose of showing that the testimony was illegal and insufficient to sustain the finding of the indictment: The State objected to such examination, the court sustained the objection, and to this ruling .of -the court the defendant duly excepted. .Thereupon the court overruled, the motion to quash the indictment, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted,. •
    There was evidence introduced on the part:of the State tending to show that the defendant was guilty as charged in the indictment. The original instrument alleged to have, been forged was offered in evidence, and was as follows: “Oct. the 18 1895 Lamison ala Mr. J. T. Dumas Dear Sir Please lete Kinge Jackison trade nine Dollars $975 cents nine Dollars 75 Cents to bee Chird to E. 0. Rains on mchinDise.” The defendant' objected to the introduction of this instrument in writing upon the ground that there was a variance between the instrument set out in the indictment and the .instrument offered in evidence. There were several grounds of variance assigned. The principal one was as to the date, as stated in the opinion. The court overruled the objection, allowed the instrument to be introduced in evidence, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted.
    
      Miller & Bonner, for appellant,
    cited Underwood v. State, 72 Ala. 220 ; Baysinger v. State, 77 Ala. 63 ; Agee v. State, 113 Ala. 52.
    William 0. Fitts, Attorney-General, for the State,
    cited Washington v. State, 63 Ala. 189 ; Jones v. State, 81 Ala. 79 ; Sparrenberger v. State, 53 Ala. 481; Agee v. State, 113 Ala. 52.
   COLEMAN, J.

In the case of Washingtonv. The State, 63 Ala. 192, quoting from Sparrenberger’s Case, 53 Ala. 481, we said: “When it appears witnesses were examined by the grand jury, or the jury had before them legal documentary evidence, no inquiry into the sufficiency of the evidence is indulged.” The motion to quash the indictment was properly overruled.

The grounds of demurrer to the indictment were considered on the former appeal, (Agee v. The State, 113 Ala. 52) ; and we held that they were not well taken. The court did not err in admitting in evidence, the original instrument alleged to have been forged. It is not the law that none but persons skilled in chirography and orthography can commit the offense of forgery; nor is it necessary in describing the instrument in the indictment alleged to have been forged, that the handwriting be precisely copied. By order of the court the instrument itself has been sent up for our own inspection. The capital J. and 0 may not be very well formed, but there is no difficulty in reading the instrument, and its meaning and purport are easily understood. The objection that the indictment describes the date as Oct. 18, 1895, whereas the instrument states it as “Oct. the 18 1895,” is without merit.

We find no error in the record.

Affirmed.