People v. MacBeth

STURTEVANT, J.

In the information the district attorney pleaded five separate counts alleging five different

[691]

acts of forgery. He also alleged two prior convictions. On his arraignment the defendant pleaded not guilty to each of the five counts alleging forgery, but admitted the prior convictions. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on counts 1, 3, 4 and 5. The defendant moved for a new trial. The motion was denied and from the judgment of conviction and the order denying him a new trial the defendant has appealed.

It was the theory of the prosecution that the defendant wrote the instruments pleaded in the information and signed the names, but the names so signed were names of fictitious persons, natural or artificial. The defendant contends that the evidence was wholly insufficient to show that any of the persons, natural or artificial, were fictitious. The district attorney called Martha B. May. She testified that the instrument set forth in the first count was cashed by her at the request of the defendant and that the instrument set forth in the second count was likewise cashed by her. He called Henrietta Rudawsky, who testified that the instrument set forth in the third count was at the request of the defendant cashed by her. He called Marguerite Pius, who testified that the instrument set forth in the fourth count was at the request of the defendant cashed by her. He also called Arabella Clark, who testified that the instrument set forth in the fifth count was cashed by her. Bach of these transfers occurred in Berkeley, Alameda County, all within a space of a few blocks of each other and within a period of four days and under almost identical circumstances. Except as to the amount and the date each instrument was as follows:

“May 20, 1929

“Security Bank & Trust Co. of Long Beach, Calif., Pay to the order of A. W. WOODSON

‘ Thirty five and no/100-Dollars.

“Value received and charge the same to account of

“W. J. Sutherland

“Cashier.

“To Southern Bond Corp.,