Case Name: JOHNSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-10-14
Citations: 170 S.W. 144
Docket Number: No. 3217
Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 170
Pages: 144–145

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. STATE.
(No. 3217.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 14, 1914.)
1. Forgery (§ 29 ) — Indictment—Suericien-cy — Innuendo.
An indictment for forgery, containing the following innuendo: “That in said false and forged instrument, if true, the words, ‘Bmt. Tex.,’ were * * * intended for ‘Beaumont, Texas,’ and the name ‘T. G. Tigmosk’ * * * was meant * * * for ‘T. G. Lignoski’; and the said instrument * * * was intended for an order from Ed Weiss upon the Sun Pipe Line Company * * * in favor of T. G. Lig-noski, whereby the said Sun Pipe Line Company should pay to the said T. G. Lignoski” a certain sum — sufficiently explained the instrument set out m the indictment to make it available as a basis of the charge of forgery and render the indictment good.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 77-81; Dec. Dig. § 29. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 363*) — Evidence—Res Gestas.
In a prosecution for foi’gery, testimony that defendant brought tó the witness an order signed by W., and that because it was not properly worded the witness wrote out the order copied in the indictment and introduced in evidence, and gave it to defendant, telling him that if he would get W. to sign it he would cash it for him, and that defendant subsequently returned with such order with W.’s name signed thereto, whereupon the witness cashed same, was admissible as part of the res gestse.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 804; Dec. Dig. § 363. 1
3. Criminal Law (§ 369 ) — Evidence or Contemporaneous Transactions — Admissibility.
In a prosecution for forgery of an order, purporting to be signed by W. on the S. Co., a witness’ testimony that he had purchased another order from defendant signed by W. on such company at about the same time was properly admitted, where defendant admitted that he sold the alleged forged order, but claimed that it had been given to him by a third person to cash, and that he did not sign W.’s name thereto.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 822-824; Dee. Dig. § 369. ]
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; W. H. Davidson, Judge.
Reed Johnson was convicted of forgery, and appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of forgery, and his punishment assessed at five years' confinement in the state penitentiary.
The indictment in this case contained the following innuendo or explanatory averments :
"That in said false and forged instrument, if true, the words, 'Bmt. Tex.,' were meant and intended for 'Beaumont, Texas,' and the name 'T. G. Tigmosk' in said false instrument aforesaid was meant and intended for 'T. G. Ligno-ski'; and the said instrument aforesaid, if true, meant and was intended for an order from Ed Weiss upon the Sun Pipe Line Company, a corporation, in favor of T. G. Lignoski, whereby the said Sun Pipe Line Company should pay to the said T. G. Lignoski the sum of six and 80/100 ($6.80) dollars for unloading pipe and loading coal."
The instrument set, out in the indictment, with those explanatory averments, could be made the basis of a charge of forgery, and the court did not err in refusing to quash the indictment, and in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.
Appellant objected to T. G. Lignoski testifying that appellant brought him an order signed 'by Ed Weiss, but on account of •the way it was worded he declined to purchase it; that he (Lignoski) then wrote out the order copied in the indictment and intro- dueed in evidence and give it to appellant, and told him if he would get Mr. Weiss to sign it he would cash it for him. Lignoski further testified that appellant went off with the order that he had written and returned with Ed Weiss' name signed .thereto, when he cashed the order for appellant. This evidence was all res gestse of the transaction, and the court did not err in admitting it.
In another bill it is contended that the court erred in permitting Gus Higsby to testify that he purchased an order from appellant for $8 signed Ed Weiss, and on the same company, and about this same time. Appellant testified and admitted he had sold the alleged forged order to Lignoski, but claimed it had been given him by Hiram Reed to cash; that he did not sign Ed Weiss' name thereto. Under such circumstances it was not error to permit evidence of a contemporaneous transaction by appellant of the same character and kind, when properly limited by the charge of .the court, as the court did in this case.
The only other bill complains of the action of the court in refusing to give peremptory instructions to acquit. This presents no error. The circumstances testified to were ample to justify the jury in finding that appellant signed the name of Ed Weiss to the order in question, and the court charged on circumstantial evidence in language frequently approved by this court.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.