Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-01-26
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
OFFICIAL.
Opinions OF the Supreme Court Of the state
of Tennessee, at Knoxville, September
Term, 1860.
Henry Hall VS.. the State.

Henry Hall vs. the State.
The conviction was for forging this written or
der ...r
"Mr J. R. Anderson, let Miller have 50 in goods,
and charge J. G. King. J. G. KING"
July 20, 1859.
The error assigned is, that the court refused to
arrest the judgment on the ground that the making
of the instrument exhibited did not constitute the
crime of forgery in the law.
Forgery is the fraudulent making or altering
any writing to the prejudice of another's right.
Code, AIS s -.-..-.
This wsuld seem to cover the case clearly enough.
An order in the name of King to Anderson for three
dollars worth of goods, is made without authority,
and for fraudulent purpose of obtaining the goods
of Anderson on the credit of King. His name is
forged to bind him unlawfuy for the benefit of the
forger. So the rights of King or Anderson must be
preiudioed If the object intended is accomplished;
that is the is the goods obtained upon the paper.
Surely the plain common sense OF the thing and the
fair meaning of the language employed, and the
OBJECT in view, can leave no doubt in the case.
But it is said the decision in the case Of Walton VS.
he State. G. Yerg. 377, fixed the meaning Of this
aw and that the case before US falls within it. We
are not disposed to yield to the authority of that
case if it must be understood to be similar to THIS
There is an ntmation against it in Sneit vs. te State
. Hump. $50 1t was made at a time when the tech
meal objections operating as shield for crime,
were more INDUCED in than they are at the present
dav. The inclination now, both of the legislature
and TIE courts is not TO scream the guilty by artf-
cal and unmeaning rules and distinctions, but to see
that the law is executed against the guilty.
This case includes every ingredient In the dehnl-
ton of forgery. 1t is said to be only request 90
all orders, bills drafts and checks. 1t was NOS
accSpted by Anderson, and therefore neither ne nor
King, whose name was forged, was injured That
is not necessary 10 make out the offence 1t is SUI
fcent that the fraudulent intent, and that the IN
jury might have resulted, If his object lad been
accomplished, Rus on Cr., 362 Is Mass, $40, ~
Hump, 444. .--. Cd.
We think the indictment contains perfect charge
of forgery in all its legal elements, and that the
court did not err in refusing to arrest the Judg-
ment.
The judgment is, therefore, affirmed, and sentence
of three years Imprisonment in the Penitentiary
Will be epfSrced.
Ia another case against the same individual, the
Judgment was arrested and the State appeSled,
There is no difference in principle between the cases.
but they were passed upon by different Circuit
Judges who differed to the authority in the case
of Walton vs. the State, before cited. The ipqict-
ment in this last was predicated upon an order
in these words:
"Mr. Pile & Taylor, let Horny Hall have shirt
and obige yours, McJ' 0ALLAHER -
May q, 1860.
There can Is 10 doubt, if we are right in the
other case thai this Ea9st be reversed, and Judgment
pronounced here on the verdict Of the jury, and this
will be done, and the sentence Of thTee years I'M
prisonment enforced. CARUTHERS'
a true copy, Test: c. ". NELSON, Clerk.