The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1905-10-25

George ". Murray, hereby prefers his
petition to the honorable Supreme
Court of said State to grant him re-
hearing in said cause upon the follow
ing grounds:
Because the Court having held in
said case that the uttering of forged
instrument is made the crime of for
gerry under Section 373, Of the Crimi-
nal Code, failed to consider the
statute, and of the change of the Law
! thereby effected, upon the rules Of
evidence tbereunto existing in regard
to the proof of FRAUDULENT intent
where the uttering of forged in
strument waslproven.
/ By the law before the enactmen Of
the statute in 1882 the utteriug of
forged instrument, knowing it to be
forged, raised an implication of guilt,
Mhich cast the burden on the defend
an, to overthrow such implication, but
the law never attached any snch i'm
| rlication upon charge of forgery.
To establish the charge of forgery it
| has ever been necessary to prove the
criminal intent; either express or i'm
piled.
Under Section 373. of the Criminal
| Code, an intent to defraud must be
proved, even If the technical offence
of forgery consists In only uttering
the instrument. This case presents
| this curious anomaly, that there are
circumstances tending to show that
the lease signed by James chatham
was not signed by his hand or wit
| messed by the hand of Marion Cato,
and there are circumstances in the
case tending to show that your petit
toner sought to make it appear that
the lease was signed by James Chat
man, but all of thegtestimony. with
| out single exception, and every cir
cumstane, without single exception.
| were directed to the validity of the
lease, but there was not single act
or circumstance averred, any testi-
mony or evidence to suggest any mo-
tive or intent to defraud by the
uttering of the instrument, and that
is the offence set forth in the indict-
ment. Therefore it is apparent that
the case was decided against your
petitioner upon the theory that the
uttering of forged paper, knowing it
to be forged, constituting the crime
of nttering carried with it an impli-
cation Of fraudulent intent, and your
petitioner, therefore, respectfully
submits that all of the important mat
ter overlooked by this honorable
Court. doubtless by reason of the vol
luminous record, consisting of one
hundred and seventeen pages that
there was statement of facts con-
tained in the case, commencing at
Folio so. whereby the fact appears,
among others, that when the return
was made by the Chatmans before the
magistrate, which return embodied
copy of the complaint for specific per-
Torrance, that your petitioner then
and there testified at Folio II that
81 was willing to receive the amount
due under the lease at any time, and
to carry out that contract in every
particular. -
And that at Folio 81 was also stated
as a fact "That the written contract
set up by the plaintiffs embodied the
subsequently reduced to writing on
she 4th day of November. 1899. And
your petitioner respectfully submits
that these statements of facts that
we're laid before the jury show that he
was standing upon the contract as set
up by the plaintiffs, and not against
it, and that sbe only difference be-
tween the parties consisted in differ
ence of opinion as to the legal con-
struction that would be placed upon
the terms Of the lease.
And it is respectfully submitted
that il the Court had the agreed state.
ment of facts. it would have been
convinced that the introduction OF
the lease in evidence was an 'nno-
cent and not a criminal act.
And it is further respectfully sub
mitted that the above statement OF
facts would have been a conclusive
exoneration of the defendant from all
evil intent, had it not been for the
rule of law which was invoked to the
effect that the instrument being a
forgery (if it was) carried with the
act Of uttering al implied intent.
Thus leaving it to the jury to say no
matter how great was the preponder
ance of the evidence in favor of the
defendant, that yet, Notwithstanding
eth suchs ,ameevidence was not sum-
cient in their opinion to overthro"
the implication of guilt arising by q
technical rule of law.
And your petitioner most respect
fully shows to the Court that if one
be indicted under Section 373, of the
Criminal Code, for forgery by reason
of forging the name o. person to
an instrument, that he is tried up
on the facts as proven without any
implication of guilt, but if be is tried
for forgery in that he uttered forged
paper, knowing it to be forged, then
by providing the forgery possibly
committed years in the past, it clothes
the act of uttering. no matter how
innocently done. with an implication
of guilt, thereby having two rules of
evidence for the same offence all of
which is now forgery. including the
uttering of a forged instrument, un
der the terms of the statute, as con-
strued by this Court.
Your petitioner bows in complete
nshmission to the mandates of this |