People v. Adams

YORK, J.

Appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Imperial County of the crime of forgery with intent to defraud Mrs. J. M. Adair, treasurer of Imperial County, and the county of Imperial.

There were three counts in the indictment, all practically the same. The first count charging forgery of the name of one Roberts, the second the name of one Shubert, and the third the name of one Main. We will first consider the first count, that of forging the name of Roberts. Certain instruments in writing were set forth in this count of the indictment; the first being a demand for $225, against the county of Imperial, for twenty-five days’ work for road district number three in the county of Imperial, alleged to have been performed in the month of November, 1924, by Roberts with “one man and Fresno.” An affidavit attached to this claim purports to have been signed by Roberts and certified as sworn to before defendant, but without designating his official title. Indorsed upon this claim is an approval of it by the defendant as chairman of the board of supervisors of Imperial County; attested by the clerk of the board, and approved by the county auditor, who thereupon issued a warrant for $225, directed to the county treasurer in favor of said Roberts, upon the back of which was indorsed “Charles Roberts, J. Roy Adams,” and the warrant was marked “PAID Dec. 10, 1924, J. M. Adair, County Treasurer.”

The second and third counts in the indictment were in the same form excepting as to the amounts stated in the demands and the names of the claimants. The defendant demurred to the indictment on the grounds that no pub-

[376]

lie offense was charged, uncertainty as to what instruments were alleged to have been forged, and other grounds which we will consider in reviewing appellant’s argument.

The first point discussed by appellant is that each count in the indictment is “duplicitous,” and purports to state three separate and distinct offenses. The contention is that the instruments are wholly separate and distinct instruments—the demand, the warrant, and the indorsements on it. It may be conceded that the indorsements on the warrant were separate and distinct from the warrant, and that a charge of forging the warrant does not include the forging of the indorsements. It is contended that it was impossible to ascertain what instrument defendant was accused of. forging. We cannot commend the indictment in this case as an .example of good pleading, but we hold that it was sufficient to enable a person of ordinary understanding to know that in the first count the name of Roberts purports to have been signed by Roberts, and that this name was forged; otherwise we should have to come to the absurd conclusion that defendant was charged with having forged his own name, as well the other names which were signed on the demand after the presentation of the demands were approved by defendant as chairman of the board of supervisors, and there could have been no object in forging the other names if the claim was a just demand regularly presented. The defendant is not in the position of a party not acquainted with all the officials whose names are signed to the documents. There was no defect or imperfection in the matter of form which tended to the prejudice of a substantial right of this defendant on the merits. This contention is made more clear by a consideration of the charge that the defendant uttered the forged instrument with the intention to defraud, etc. From the foregoing it is plain that no more than one offense was charged in the first count of the indictment.