Case Name: Edward H. Johnson et al. v. State of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1905-11
Citations: 87 Miss. 502
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward H. Johnson et al. v. State of Mississippi.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
Edward H. Johnson et al. v. State of Mississippi.
Criminal Law. Forgery. Code 1892, § 1093. Fraudulent representations. Code' 1892, § 1086. False pretenses. Cheats.
Inducing another to sign a deed by false and fraudulent representations does not constitute forgery at common law, nor under Code 1892, § 109,3, defining that offense, but does constitute a crime under Code 1892, § 1086, defining false pretenses and cheats.
Erom the circuit court of Rankin county.
Hon. John R. Enochs, Judge.
Edward IT. Johnson and Edward H. Johnson, Jr., the appellants — father and son — were indicted and tried for and convicted of forgery, and appealed to the supreme court. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.'
William Buchanan, and Harris & Powell, for appellants.
William Williams, attorney-general; and li. V. Fletcher, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
[The reporter has been unable to find the briefs of counsel in this case, hence a synopsis of them is not given.]

Opinion:
Cali-ioon, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The indictment is for forgery. The state depends for its case wholly on evidence that one Sarah Hall was induced to sign with her mark a conveyance of land on the false and fraudulent representation that it was a pension paper. Forgery cannot be predicated of these facts under the common law. By that it would be a cheat or-swindle. 1 Bish. Cr. Law, sec. 584; 2 Bish. Cr. Law, sec. 590; 1 Whart. Cr. Law, sec. 674; Putnam v. Sullivan, 4 Mass., 45 (3 Am. Dec., 206); Commonwealth v. Sankey, 22 Pa., 390 (60 Am. Dec., 91); Hill v. State, 1 Verg. (Tenn.), 76 (24 Am. Dec., 441); Wells v. State, 89 Ga., 788 (15 S. E. Rep., 679); People v. Underhill, 142 N. Y., 38 (36 N. E. Rep., 1049). In the case at bar there was no forgery of any wilting under Code 1892, § 1093; hnt Code 1892, § 1086, was enacted to meet this sort' of case, under the head of "false pretenses and cheats," and with a smaller penalty than is denounced against forgery.
Reversed, and remanded.