Case Name: Neal Tucker v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-12-04
Citations: 84 Tex. Crim. 332
Docket Number: No. 5241
Parties: Neal Tucker v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
Neal Tucker v. The State.
No. 5241.
Decided December 4, 1918.
Forgery—Indictment—Presumption—Practice on Appeal.
In the absence of a statement of facts it must be presumed that the proof showed the forgery as alleged in the indictment, and that the original instrument could not be obtained by the grand jury because it was in defendant’s possession. •
Appeal from the District Court of Bed Biver. Tried below before the Hon. Ben H. Denton.
Appeal from a conviction of forgery; penalty, three years imprisonment in the -penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction foi forgery. There is no statement of facts and no bill of exceptions.
The following is a copy of the alleged forged check:
"Clarksville, Texas
"FIBST NATIONAL BANK OF CLABKSVILLE, 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" hut 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 his motion to quash.
There is nothing else to review. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.