People v. Van Skander

California Court of Appeal Apr 7, 1937 No. Crim. 1942Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A partner who signs a co-partner's name to a check without authority, in violation of a specific deposit agreement requiring dual signatures, is guilty of forgery despite the partnership relationship.

Issues

Whether a partner can be convicted of forgery for signing a co-partner's name to a check drawn on a partnership account subject to a dual-signature requirement.
Whether the defendant waived his right to object to his wife's testimony by failing to object at trial.
Whether the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument constituted prejudicial misconduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“if one signs his own and the other’s name to a check by which the fund is withdrawn, to the prejudice of the other, and with criminal intent, he is guilty of forgery.”

“The defendant’s rights to draw checks on the account were those expressed in the deposit agreement and not otherwise.”

[251]

STURTEVANT, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of forgery. He made a motion for a new trial but the motion was denied. He also made a motion for probation but that motion was also denied. Later sentence was imposed and he appealed from the judgment and the order denying a new trial.

The charging part of the information is as follows: “The said Bruce Van Skander, on or about the 8th day of August, A. D. nineteen hundred and thirty-six, at the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, falsely, fraudulently and with intent to prejudice, damage and defraud Ellen G. Van Skander, and the San Francisco Bank, a banking corporation, make, alter, forge and counterfeit a certain instrument in writing for the payment of money in the words and figures, following, towit:

‘The San Francisco Bank San Francisco, Calif., August 8th, 1936

Pay to the order of Cash........................... $10.00

Ten and no/100..................................Dollars.

Kurola Products Company Ellen G. Van Skander, Bruce H. Van Skander. ’ And he, the said Bruce Van Skander, then and there well knowing the same to be false and forged, did then and there, towit: on or about the 8th day of August, 1936, at the said City and County of San Francisco, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, falsely, fraudulently and with intent to prejudice, damage and defraud the said Ellen Van Skander and the said The San Francisco Bank, utter, publish and pass the same as true and genuine to said The San Francisco Bank:

The uncontradicted evidence was to the effect that a few months prior to August 8, 1936, the defendant was engaged in purchasing mineral oil in Utah, transporting it to San Francisco, processing it, bottling it, and selling it for medicinal purposes. The business was conducted under the fictitious names of Kurola Products Company and Unita Sales Company. At that time the defendant was the sole proprietor of both companies. He married Ellen G. Van Skander. On or about his wedding day the defendant commenced borrowing sums of money from his wife. At the

People v. Van Skander

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief