People v. Maioli

PULLEN, P. J.

Against defendant an information was filed charging forgery. He was tried and convicted and now appeals from the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial.

Defendant issued a check signed “Haioli Bros”, payable to Hector Haioli and indorsed by Hector Haioli. This check was drawn on the Commercial Bank of Patterson and at that time there was an account therein in the name of Haioli Bros. Defendant presented this check to a merchant and received in return merchandise and the balance in cash.

It is urged by appellant upon this appeal that where the offense is forgery of the name of an existing person the People must affirmatively establish first, the signing and passing of the cheek; secondly, the intent to defraud; thirdly, the lack of authority, and fourthly, knowledge of such lack of

[206]

authority. It is to the proof of lack of authority appellant principally directs his attack upon the judgment.

An official of the bank to which the cheek was directed testified there was an account in the bank in the name of Maioli Bros., and that the signature of either of two certain parties was sufficient to authorize withdrawal of funds therefrom. The name of defendant was, of course, not one of those so authorized.

To a representative of the sheriff’s office, defendant made a statement admitting he had written the check in question and signed Maioli Bros, thereto and that he presented the same to the complaining witness and received cash and merchandise therefor. Nothing was asked him by what authority or upon whose order he signed and issued the check in question.

The defendant took the stand in his own behalf and again admitted the issuing of the check. He also admitted having issued other checks signed Maioli Bros., upon which he received cash, all of which were returned by the bank as irregular and all of which were made good by members of defendant’s family. Again no question was asked as to any authority to sign Maioli Bros, to the check. It might be inferred from the testimony of defendant that he did not have authority to sign Maioli Bros., but we cannot sustain a conviction upon suspicion or conjecture. Practically the entire cross-examination of the district attorney was devoted to the consideration of previous checks issued by defendant and whether or not at the time they were issued defendant knew them to be forgeries. We find no reference to the check here in question except the following: