People v. Sansom
Before: Conrey
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
CONREY, P. J.
Forgery. The defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The information in this case charges that on or about the eighteenth day of October, 1917, at the county of Los Angeles, state of California, the defendant had in his possession a cheek in writing for the payment of money, and then and there, knowing the same to be a forged check, did willfully, etc., utter, publish, and pass the said cheek with the name of Alice G. Sowle falsely signed thereon as true and genuine, with the intent then and there and thereby to cheat and defraud the said Alice G. Sowle, the Bank of Bisbee, a corporation, and the Continental National Bank, a corporation.
At all times mentioned herein Alice G. Sowle had on deposit in the Bank of Bisbee the sum of $5,512.76. The cheek in question called for that sum and was made payable to the order of Continental National Bank. On the seventeenth day of September, 1917, the defendant, under the name of Herndon McNeil, opened an account in the Continental National Bank. On or about the eighteenth day of October, 1917, the Continental National Bank received by mail the check in question, together with a letter signed by the defendant under the name Herndon McNeil. That letter was dated Tia Juana, Mexico, October 16, 1917, and instructed the bank as follows: “I hand you a check of Alice G. Sowle for $5,512.76 payable to yourselves, which kindly collect and credit my account with the proceeds. Mail the receipt for the check and advice of payment to me at General Delivery, Los Angeles.” The bank forwarded the check to the Bank of Bisbee, Arizona, and that bank refused payment on the ground that the check was forged. The evidence shows that in fact it was forged.
[437]
We will state defendant’s principal .ground of appeal in the words of his counsel, as follows: “It is the contention of the defendant that no crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the state of California, for the reason that as far as the proof shows the cheek was mailed from Tia Juana, Mexico, and if forged was presumptively forged there and sent to the hank in Los Angeles, with such instructions to the said bank as would, require the said bank, as the agent of the defendant, to mail the check to Arizona for collection, so that there could be no uttering of the said cheek in California, and that the uttering did not take place until the check was presented to the Bank of Bisbee, in the state of Arizona, for payment. So that neither one of the elements necessary to constitute the offense as charged in the information against this defendant was consummated or carried out in California. Defendant raised the question of venue on a motion for an instructed verdict in the trial of this cause and by a motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial. All of these motions were denied. ’ ’
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)