Case Name: BROWN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-12-07
Citations: 132 S.W. 789
Docket Number: 
Parties: BROWN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 132
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
BROWN v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 7, 1910.)
1. CRIMINAL Law (§ 970 ) — Appeal—Objections to Information — Motion in Arrest.
Objections to the sufficiency of an indictment may be raised by motion in arrest of judgment.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2445-2402; Dec. Dig. § 070. )
2. Forgery (§ 26 ) — Uttering Forged Instrument — Indictment — Authority — Attempt to Defraud.
An indictment for uttering a forged instrument is not fatally defective for failure to allege that the instrument was made or uttered without lawful authority and with intent to defraud.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Dec. Dig. § 26. ]
3. Forgery (§ 29 ) — Uttering Forged In-strumeni^Effect — Character of Bank.
An indictment for uttering a forged check on a specified date was not fatally defective for failure to allege whether the bank was a partnership, a joint-stock 'company, or a corporation, or what business it was engaged in.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 77-81; Dec. Dig. § 29. ]
4. Forgery (§ 29 ) — Uttering Forged Check.
An indictment for uttering a forged check was not fatally defective for failure to allege whether the company purporting to have drawn the check was a partnership, a joint-stock company, or a corporation.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 77-81; Dec. Dig. § 29. ]
Appeal from District Court, Orange County; W. B. Powell, Judge.
Herbert Brown was convicted of uttering a forged check, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER, in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
RAMSEY, J.
By indictment filed in the district court of Orange county on the 6th day of May, 1910, appellant was charged with unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and fraudulently passing as true a false and forged instrument in writing of the tenor following:
Orange, Texas, Feb. 1910. - No.
The First Orange Bank of Orange Texas. $10.00
Pay to Hebert Brown or bearer tin -/mo Dollars.
The Cameron Live Stock Co. Andrew Lemaire.
Thereafter on May 17th he was found guilty as charged in the indictment, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
As the record reaches us, it contains no statement of facts. The bills of exception found in the record relate to matters which cannot be reviewed, except the one which urges the insufficiency of the indictment. This matter is well raised in appellant's motion in arrest of judgment, and is to the effect, in substance, that the indictment is fatally defective, in that it fails to include the necessary allegation, "which had theretofore been made without lawful authority and with intent to defraud." In this respect the indictment is sufficient, and follows literally the form laid down by Judge 'Willson in his book of forms. See Forms, No. 311.
It is also alleged that it is insufficient, in that it fails to allege whether or not the First Orange Bank of Orange, Texas, was a partnership, a joint-stock company or a corpora-, tion, and what business said concern was engaged in. This question has been ruled adversely to appellant in the case of Reeseman v. State, 128 S. W. 1126.
Finally, it is urged that the indictment is insufficient, in that it fails to allege whether or not The Cameron Live Stock Company was a partnership, a joint-stock company, or a corporation. This contention seems supported by the case of Lobbaite v. State, 6 Tex. App. 483. However, that case was overruled in the more recent case of Howard v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 494, 36 S. W. 475, 66 Am. St. Rep. 812, which was reaffirmed in the case of Brod v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 71, 57 S. W. 671. This rule is now well settled in this state.
Considered all together, there seems to be no error for which the judgment should be reversed; and it is therefore ordered that the same be in all things affirmed.