Case Name: William Stanford v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-10-13
Citations: 105 Tex. Crim. 217
Docket Number: No. 9687
Parties: William Stanford v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 105
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
William Stanford v. The State.
No. 9687.
Delivered October 13, 1926.
The opinion states the case.
B. Q. Evans of Greenville, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Robert M. Lyles, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, Judge.
The offense charged is forgery, and the punishment assessed is two years in the penitentiary.
The indictment charges that the appellant made a false instrument in writing purporting to be the act of another, to-wit, the act of Fred Raynor, and the said false instrument is set out in full in the indictment and shows to be a check drawn against the Hunt County Bank & Trust Company, payable to William Siam ford for the sum of $11.50.
We have carefully examined the record in the case and find that the facts fail to show that any check was introduced in evidence, and they further fail to describe with any degree of certainty the said check in controversy. It was essential in this case to introduce in evidence the check described in the indictment, there being no proof that the check was lost. Muniz v. State, 59 Tex. Crim. Rep. 365. McBride v. State, 93 Tex. Crim. Rep. 257. Dovalina v. State, 14 Tex. Crim. App. 312. This the proof in the instant case wholly fails to do and because of such failure, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The judgment of the district court is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.