Case Name: Fogg vs. The State
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1836-12
Citations: 9 Yer. 392
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fogg vs. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 392–394

Head Matter:
Fogg vs. The State.
'The indictment charged that Joseph G. Fogg,-the defendant, did feloniously and fraudulently forge and make a certain writing obligatory in the name of James G. Fogg, the tenor of which writing obligatory is as follows; that is to say, &c. The instrument set t)ut purports on its face to be executed by James G. Fogg and Joseph G. Fogg, the defendant: Held, that there wss no repugnance in the charge in the indictment.
The plaintiff was convicted in the circuit court of Giles county of the crime of forgery. The objection here taken to the Judgment of the circuit court, is limited to. the manner in which the offence is charged in the bill of indictment. The instrument set forth as a forgery in the bill of indictment is as follows; $75. On or before the 1st day ofJanuary next, we James G. Fogg, and Joseph G. Fogg, do promise to pay Unto John Whitfield, Jun. the sum of seventy-five dollars, for value received, as witness our hands this 25th day of October, 1835.
JOSEPH G. FOGG, [Ls.]
JAMES G. FOGG, [Ls.]
The first count charges, that Joseph G. Fogg, the prisoner, “did feloniously and fraudulently forge and make a certain writing obligatory in the name of James G. Fogg, the tenor of which writing obligatory is as follow; that is to say, here the writing is set out, as above. Then the indictment pro- coeds, with which to defraud one -James G. Fogg, and with intent to defraud one John Whitfield.”
The second count charges, that the prisoner “did feloni-ously and fraudulently forge and make a certain other writing, bearing the form of a Bond, for the payment bf money, to wit, for the payment of seventy-five dollars in the name of James G. Fogg, which said forged writing,-bearing the form of a bond -for the payment of money, to wit, for the payment of seventy-five dollars, is in the words figures and letters following, that is to say, (“here the writing is set forth as above,”) with intent, &c.'
The third count, is for feloniously and fraudulently passing and transferring a “forged writing, bearing the form bf a bond &c.,” using the terms in¡the second count, setting forth the instrument as before, and then averring defendant’s knowledge of its being a forgery &c.
J. W. Comb's, & j. Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. /S'. Yerger, Attorney Geti’i. for the State.

Opinion:
Reese J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The objection urged against the indictment is, that in each count, the forgery is charged to have been of a writing obligatory, or writing bearing the form of a bond, in the name of James G. Fogg, when the bond set out in the bill of indictment is in the name of Joseph G. Fogg ánd James G. Fogg, which is alleged to be repugnant. The Attorney General insists, that as the forgery consists in making the bond in the name of James G. Fogg and not in the name of Joseph G. Fogg, with respect to whose name, there was no forgery; that the charge is according to the fact, and correct, and that to have charged the forgery to have been in the names of both, ,would have been, not only false, but fatal. He insists also,' that there is no repugnance between the charge and the instrument set out, but they are consistent with each other, and with the criminal fact alleged. The cases referred to, by the counsel of the prisoner in 2 Russell on Crimes 364 and 5, being Readings case, and Gilchrist's case, do not maintain their Pos^on' They turn upon the meaning and effect of the aver-' merit in an indictment of the purport of an instrument.' I» the first case, the court says, "that it is clear that where an instrument is to be set forth, the description, that it purports a particular fact, necessarily means that what is stated, as the purport of the instrument appears on the face of the instrument itself." In the other case, Justice Buller says, "old cases have given rise to much learning and argument, on the words-"purport and tenor;" - and the Books' are full of distinctions as to the meaning of these • words, and the necessity of using the one or the other of them in indictments where written instruments are td be'stated' But in the many cases upon ⅛⅛ subject, I can find no judicial determination that the purport and the tenor,, should both be stated, in any case whatever. Purport, means, the suhstance'of an instrument as it appears* on the face of it to every eye that reads it, and tenor means an exact copy of it; and therefore, where the instrument is stated accordingto its tenor, the purport of it must necessarily appear.
It were, needless to state the facts of these cases, to show the want of application. In this case, the indictment having' averred in what the forgery consisted, to wit; in the name of James G. Fogg, proceeds to give the instrument by its tenor. It does not set out the instrument by its purport. _ The case of The State vs. Shawley 5 Hay. 256, was a case of repugnance. The indictment was for forging a Writing, describing the same, by saying purporting to be signed by the president and directors &c.; on setting'out the instrument by its-tenor, verbatim, it appeared not to he so signed. This was held to be repugnant and fatal. We feel no doubt in the case before us. Let the judgment be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.