Case Name: D. W. McBride v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-29
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 257
Docket Number: No. 7070
Parties: D. W. McBride v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 257–259

Head Matter:
D. W. McBride v. The State.
No. 7070.
Decided November 29, 1922.
Rehearing denied January 17, 1923.
1. —Forgery—Check—Evidence—Rule Stated.
In a prosecution for forgery, unless upon a proper predicate, the forged instrument is proved by secondary evidence, it is essential that the written instrument described in the indictment be introduced in evidence, and where the alleged forged check was no. so introduced the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded. Following Bobbitt v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 315, and other cases.
2. —Same—Endorsement—Indictment—Practice in Trial Court.
Where the record showed that the injured party did not sign the alleged check, but that his name was endorsed upon same, the indictment should be so framed as to coincide with the evidence to that effect, as the endorsement was not a part of the check. Following Mettall v. State, 232 S. W., 316.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Statement of Facts — Alleged Check — Amendment.
Where the effect of the motion for rehearing, based on a certificate of the trial judge, affidavits of the district attorney, etc., is in effect a request that this court permit the amendment of the statement of facts originally sent to this court, the same cannot be considered. Following McConnell v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 409, and other cases.
Appeal from the District Court of Titus. Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Wilkinson.
Appeal from a conviction of forgery; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Wilkinson & Cook, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
Conviction is for forgery; punish- ' ment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The instrument is a check for six dollars, payable to D. W. McBride, or bearer. It is thus described in the indictment.
". . . the act of T. O. Johnson, which said false instrument in writing is to the tenor following, Windfield, Texas, 1/11/1921 The FIRST NATIONAL BANK 88-297. of Mt. Pleasant, Pay to D. W. McBride, or Bearer, $6.00/00 Six____Dollars, C. M. McBride, D. W. McBride, T. O. Johnson."
No check was introduced in evidence; at least, it is not found copied in the statement of facts. In a prosecution for forgery, unless upon a proper predicate the forged instrument is proved by secondary evidence, it is essential that the written instrument described in the indictment be introduced in evidence. Bobbitt v. State, 89 Texas C. m. Rep., 315; Branch's Ann. Tex. Penal Code, Sec. 1413; Wilson v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 144, 243 S. W. Rep., 466. Such evidence as is found with reference to the instrument declared upon does not support the averments in the indictment, descriptive of the alleged forged writing. We gather from the statement of facts that T. O. Johnson did not sign a check but that his name was indorsed on the back of one. The indorsement was not a part of the check. Branch's Ann. Texas. Penal Code, Sec. 1397; Mettall v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 216, 232 S. W. Rep., 316. If it is the desire to prosecute for forging the name of the indorser, the indictment should be so framed as to coincide with the evidence to that effect.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded
Reversed and remanded.