Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1904-06-29
STATE vs.. PINE
fContinued from Page 81

State to prove that it is not that
! persons note, in order to make
out prima facie case. So where
the prisoner obtains money from
a person, for a check drawn by G,
A. upon a certain banking house,
the State may show that no person
of that name had an account, or
funds or credit, in that house, and
so make out a prima facie case.
See other similar illustrations in
said section. Surely the State
must show that the order is false
and fraudulent, and how can it
be done except by showing want
of authority to make it out?
The case is analogous to those
of People VS.. Dickie, 81 Hun. IN.
" 400, and State VS.. Kreoger, AZ
Mo. $50. The first of these asserts
and decides that where the cash
Ter of firm had been intrusted
with checks, payable to his order,
signed by the firm, and left blank
as to date and amount, to be used
by him for certain specified pur-
poses only, and he filled out one
of them in his own favor, indoors
ed it in blank, obtained the money
on it, failed to enter the cash IN
the check book, and fled almost
Immediately, he was guilty Of for
gerry. In the other case the treasu-
rer of the City of st. Louis had
left with Kroeger certain blank
checks, with directions to fill them
up to the use of holders of war
rants against the city, and he took
one of them, and after making
slight alterations in it, filled it
out, obtained the money on it, and
converted it to his own use. A
conviction on a charge Of forgery
based on these facts, was SUSTAIN
ed. These decisions are founded
upon the following similar Eng
lish cases: Reg. VS.. Bateman ]
Coke C. c.; Regina VS.. Minter'
hart 7 Car. & P. 652; Reg. VS.
Wilson 2 Car. & p. 257; and Reg
VS.. Richardson, 2 Foster & Fin
343. These cases declare that the
unauthorized filling up Of blanks
in checks, notes, acecptances anc
similar instruments of commercial
! character amounts to forgery. Il
is manifest that the gist Of the
! offense in these cases is the max
ing of such paper without author
ity, in other words, the doing Of
an act in excess of authority
This is the principal fact estab
fishing the elements of falsity anc
fraudulency of the making of thu
paper. The signatures to the pa
per in question here are admit
teddy genuine. They constitute il
legal effect the signature of thu
city, and, hence the paper is very
similar to a check signed in blank
and if the accused committed for
gerry in the making of the ordel
il is because he exceeded his au
thority in doing so, and did i
with intent to defraud. But tn
want of authority is now shown.
Regarding this as sound Law
applicable to the case, we holc
that the Court erred in giving, a
the instance of the State, the fol
lowing instructions presenting tt
the jury a theory of the case no
founded upon evidence to sustain
it.
! l. The jury are instructed tina
forgery is the fraudulent making
or alteration of writing to thu
prejudice of another's rights, ant
if you believe from the evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt tina
James H. Pine, the defendant
fraudulently procured the sigma
ture of c.. W. Grier, Mayor t.
said order with intent to defraud
then YOU shall find him guilty al
charged.
! 2. The jury are instructed tha'
if you believe from the evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt tina
the defendant, James H. Pine
fraudulently made the order il
evidence, and fraudulently pro
cured the signature of c. W
Grier Mayor, to the same, with in
tent to defraud, you shall find de
PENDANT guilty as charged.