People v. Crane

HARRISON, P. J.

The information herein filed against the appellant charges him with having willfully and feloniously uttered and passed to Charles E. Noyes a certain false, forged and counterfeit check as the true and genuine check of the purported maker thereof, knowing the same to be false, forged and counterfeit, with the intent to defraud the said Noyes, “which said check is in the words and figures as follows, -to wit:

“Central Bank. Savings and Commercial.

“No. 90.

“Oakland, Cal., June 3rd, 1905.

“Pay to Arthur Crane or bearer $18 eighteen dollars.

“(signed) D. J. HALL,

“Trustee Hutchinson Estate.”

—and which was indorsed on the back thereof as follows: “Arthur Crane.” Upon the trial thereof the defendant was convicted of the crime of forgery, and has appealed from the judgment thereon and from an order denying a new trial.

[144]

1. The defendant demurred to the information on the ground that the facts stated therein do not constitute a public offense; and that the information does not state the particular circumstances of the alleged offense charged. No suggestion is made that any circumstances connected with the offense other than those stated are “necessary to constitute a complete offense”; and unless such is the fact the information is not demurrable under the provisions of section 952 (2), Penal Code.

It is urged, however, by the appellant that, as the information states that the instrument charged to have been uttered by him and passed to Noyes had the word “(signed) ” prefixed to the name of D. J. Hall, it appears upon its face that it was not the true and genuine check of Hall, but only a copy of the check purporting to have been made by him, and therefore that Noyes could not have been damaged or prejudiced by receiving it. It is without question a very unusual mode of drawing a check for the maker thereof to prefix his signature with the word “signed”; but as it cannot be said that a check could not be drawn in this form, or that if so drawn such prefix would in any respect qualify the liability of the drawer, it cannot be assumed as a matter of law that the prefix did not purport to have been written by him before its delivery. Under "the charge in the information that the entire instrument as set forth therein was false and forged, and that the defendant passed the same well knowing-that it was false and forged, it must be held that the word “signed” was included in the information as being a portion, of the written instrument which the defendant is charged-with having passed as the true and genuine check of. Hall. The demurrer was therefore properly overruled.