People v. Cowen

TUTTLE, J.

Defendant was found guilty by a jury upon four counts of an indictment, each charging him with the crime of forgery. He now appeals from the judgment of conviction and order denying motion for new trial.

Defendant had, for a number of years, held the office of supervisor of Humboldt County. As such officer he was, from time to time, called upon to approve claims against the county for work and materials furnished the county under his direction, as provided in section 4076 of the Political Code. Under the provisions of said section the claimant was obliged to sign and file the following affidavit:

“The undersigned, being duly sworn, says: That the above claim and the items as therein set out are true and correct; that no part thereof has been heretofore paid, and that the amount therein is justly due this claimant, and that the same is presented within one year after the last item thereof has accrued. ’ ’

Each count of the indictment involved one of said claims, and the record shows that they were paid by the County.

No attack is made upon the sufficiency of the evidence. The proof of guilt is so overwhelming that such contention could not seriously be advanced. The four claims set forth in the indictment, all based upon labor performed, were introduced in evidence. The first purported to be that of Bill Thompson. It was for $88, and that name appeared as the affiant. It purported to be assigned to Messer!e & Waldorf, grocers, who cashed it for defendant. The same observation applies to

[826]

the other three claims, except for the difference in names and amounts.' The second purported to be the claim of W. 0. Butler, and the amount was $44. The third bore the name of W. C. Butler, and the amount was $44. The fourth purported to be the claim of W. Dart, and the amount was $64. All of said claims were presented to the auditor by the assignee, and thereafter warrants were cashed by them.

William Thompson

testified that he did not sign the claim which bore his name, and that he was not in Humboldt County when the work described in said claim was performed. It was proven that