Court Opinion

ID: 9778845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:22:34.347763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:14.124861
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Judge
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding that the check passed by appellant was a forgery, and that appellant knew it was a forged check when she passed it, is challenged. There is other evidence produced by the state which was not set out in our original opinion.
A. E. Morgan, Credit Manager for Weingartens, testified that the $50 check bearing the signature “Florence W. Cox” was returned to the company unpaid; that he began an investigation and found that Courtesy Card No. E.E. 1098 had been issued to Edward J. Winston and not to Florence W. Cox; that no courtesy card had ever been issued to a Florence W. Cox; that there was no such address in Houston as 510 Bremond; that he had not been able to locate anyone by the name of Florence W. Cox in the city of Houston; that in his investigation he found six Weingarten’s Courtesy Cards bearing the number E.E. 1098, each bearing a different name, and that at his request Edward J. Winston returned the original Courtesy Card No. E.E. 1098.
The two Weingarten employees called by the state in rebuttal each testified that courtesy cards exhibited to them by appellant bore the number of E.E. 1098, one bearing the name of Helen Taylor and the other Charlotte Craig.
We remain convinced that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that the $50 check purporting to be the check of Florence W. Cox, which appellant passed as true to Mary Bailey, was a forgery, and that appellant knew it was a forged check when she cashed it.
*146In the absence of an objection to its omission or a request therefor, the failure of the trial judge to charge upon the law of circumstantial evidence is not ground for reversal.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.