Case Name: TUCKER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-12-04
Citations: 206 S.W. 943
Docket Number: No. 5241
Parties: TUCKER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 206
Pages: 943–943

Head Matter:
TUCKER v. STATE.
(No. 5241.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 4, 1918.)
Criminal Law <®=1144(3) — Review — Presumptions.
Where indictment charging forgery did not give initials of payee, but stated that false instrument was in possession of accused, and grand jury was unable to obtain it, and could not set it out by its tenor, it will be presumed on appeal, in the absence of a statement of facts, that proof showed forgery as alleged, that original instrument was in appellant’s possession, and that state was unable to obtain it, and for that reason could not further set it out.
Appeal from District Court, Red River 'County; Ben H. Denton, Judge.
Neal Tucker was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 206 S. W. 943.
E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
This is an appeal from a conviction for forgery. There is no statement of facts and no bill of exceptions.
The following is a copy of the alleged forged check;
"Clarksville, Texas.
"Hirst National Bank of Clarksville, Texas;
"Pay to Gatts $10.40 Ten & 40/100 Dollars.
"W. H. Miller."
The indictment, after the necessary allegations of forgery, alleged that said false instrument was in possession of appellant, and the grand jury was unable to obtain it, and could not set it out by its tenor.
Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment, for the reason that the alleged forged check does not give the name of the payee, only gives the name "Gatts," but does not give the initials, and claimed that because thereof the check was void on its face, and created no pecuniary obligation sufficient, if true, to constitute forgery. .
We must presume, and do, in the absence of a statement of facts, that the proof showed the forgery as alleged, and that the original instrument was in appellant's possession, and that the state was unable to obtain it, and for that reason could not further set it out. The court did not err in overruling bis motion to quash.
There is nothing else to review. The judgment is affirmed.
(&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes