People v. Elmott

[280]

NOURSE, P. J.

Defendant was tried before a jury upon an information charging forgery in the making and passing of a written instrument. Upon her conviction she appealed from the judgment and from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

The instrument was a check for $10 drawn upon the Watson-ville branch of the Bank of Italy, made payable to Jessie Thomas, and signed “R. C. Duncan”. The defendant presented the cheek to the proprietress of a hotel in Watson-ville and it was accepted in payment of room rent after the defendant had forged the indorsement of Jessie Thomas in her presence. The prosecution was based on the theory that R. C. Duncan was a fictitious person. Proof was made that no one by that name resided in Santa Cruz County and that there was no account in the Watsonville bank in that name. The defendant took the stand and admitted writing the face of the check, but denied writing the indorsement. As to the latter she was directly contradicted by the party to whom the check was passed. The defendant gave a weird story of having been authorized to draw checks in an unlimited amount by her husband who, she said, was named R. C. A. Duncan. This authority she claimed to have been given some three or four years prior to the transaction charged in the information when she was living with her husband in San Jose. Thereafter she was committed to the state penitentiary upon a conviction of issuing fictitious checks. ■ She served fourteen and a half months, was released on parole, and voluntarily returned to the penitentiary in order to receive hospital treatment. She had met her husband but once during the past three years, had not corresponded with him, but believed that he was somewhere in Los Angeles. She admitted that he had not authorized her to draw on the Watsonville bank, that she knew he had no account in that bank, that he had never resided in nor been engaged in business in Santa Cruz County. She testified that her husband’s business was “auto accessories and real estate”. She then offered in evidence page 83 of the Santa Cruz County directory upon which the name “Robt. Duncan” appeared as residing in the city of Santa Cruz. The occupation of this Robt. Duncan was given as a restaurant worker. From this evidence she argues that the cheek might have been drawn by this Robt. Duncan.

[281]