The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1905-10-18
THE COURTS DECISION.
The Opinion Of the Supreme Court in
the George w. Murray Case.

conclusions so clearly that extracts
from the opinion are here quoted:
The remaining exceptions raise the
question whether there was any tes-
timony tending to sustain the allega-
tions of the indictment that were put
in issue and contested by the defend
ant In order to constitute forgery
by uttering or publishing a forged
instrument of writing three inpor-
tant factors are requisite: q. 1t
must be uttered or published as true
and genuine s(2) 1t must be known
by the party uttering Or publishing It
as false, forged or counterfeited. CD
It must be with intent to prejudice,
damage or defraud another person.
We will first consider whether there
was any testimony to the effect that it
vas uttered or published by the de-
fendant as true and genuine.
TT was offered in evidence by the
defendant upon the trial of the action
for specific performance OF contract,
instituted against him by Scipio Chat
man and James chatham, and he tes-
tilted that it was genuine.
!. The next question for consideration
is whether there was any testimony
tending to prove that the defendant
knew that the writing uttered or pub
lished was false, forged or counter
felt. There is abundance Of testi-
mony to the effect that said writing
was forged
James chatham testified that he die.
not sign the lease. Scipio chatham
testified that James chatham did not
sign on the 4th of November, 1899,
while he and James were at the house
Of defendant, when the negotiations
for the lease or purchase of the land
were consummated. Marion W. Cato,
who witnessed the agreement, signed
in duplicate. by Scipio Chatman and
George w. Murray, testified that he
did not sign his name as witness to
the instrument or writing which set
out in the indictment, which purports
to have been signed by George y.
Murray and James Chairman and Wit
messed by him.
Witness testified that there was on
~ one kind of ink used by Murray and
others when the papers were signed
on the 4th of November, 1899, and it
was black, yet the alleged forged in
strument was written in blue ink and
| on white paper, While the duplicate
| writing, signed by the defendant and
Scipio Chatman was on blue paper.
E. F. Miller testified that he printed
the blank on which the lease in ques-
ton was written along with others,
for the defendants, during the early
part Of the year 1900. On those
blanks then printed appear the num-
bers COON two places.
It is at least a reasonable inference
from these facts that the defendant
knew the writing was forged.
The next question that will be con-
sidered is whether there was testi-
mony tending to show that the writ
ing was uttered with fraudulent in
| intent.
The facts which constitute the Of
fence are here found. The intent is
only matter of circumstances, which
naturally follows and springs out of
| the facts. No other than fraudu-
lent intent can be inferred when a
man makes or passes false deed as
law for true one. The law will
presume as the foregoing case (in
odium fraudis) that it was done with
a fraudulent intention. The defend
ant testified that ne did not know un-
til the proceedings for specific per-
formance were commenced that the
parties claimed that only one Of them
had signed the contract, and after
wards When he found out that only
one of them had signed, he mention
ed it in his answer.
The following appears in the testi-
mony Of the defendant:
G. You have stated that up to the
time these proceedings were started
you thought both these parties signed
the contract?
A. Yes, sir.
@. And you set up in your answer
that Scipio Chatman had signed this
contract, you began to look up your
papers, and you found that paper
signed by James Chairman.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you set up in your answe.
that Scipio didn't make any contract