People v. Canfield

MELVIN, J.

Defendant after conviction upon a charge of forgery, moved for a new trial. His motion was granted and from the order made in that behalf, the people appeal.

[310]

Canfield was charged with forging a certain mortgage purporting to have been executed by Justin B. Cook, the owner of the real property described, in said mortgage to secure the payment of a promissory note for ten thousand dollars payable by Cook to one Helmer B. Rabild who was the mortgagee named in the instrument. The defendant was also charged in a separate count with the forgery of the name of the notary public appearing upon the purported acknowledgment to the mortgage.

The evidence on the part of the prosecution tended to show that defendant, representing himself as Helmer B. Rabild, sold the note and mortgage to Caroline and Flora B. Schertz; that he was paid by cheek which he deposited in a bank, drawing from time to time against the account thus established by means of checks signed ‘‘H. E. Rabild. ” At all times after his arrest the defendant denied that he was Rabild or that he had forged or negotiated the mortgage and note. The evidence showed that he did admit that he knew Rabild who, he said, lived in Monrovia, but to whom he was .unable to lead an officer whom he promised to guide to Rabild’s home. During this futile trip he was asked by a Mr. Adams if he had executed a certain other mortgage and had acknowledged it before a notary public named Baly. He replied that he had done so, and was then informed that Baly had been in Honolulu at the date of the alleged acknowledgment. At this juncture the officer in charge of the defendant teob him aside and said: ‘‘Mr. Canfield, you have heard what Mr. Adams asked you. . . . What is the use of keeping us out all day, staying here? It is late now and we want to all get back”; and said: ‘‘Why don’t you tell us the truth about it?” He (defendant) said: ‘‘All right, I will tell you the truth about it; take me right back into town.’’ it was also in evidence that Canfield told Adams that there was a man named Rabild; that he and Rabild had worked deals

together;

and that they had participated in a transaction whereby Rabild had procured four thousand dollars upon a purported sale of realty consummated by means of a forged instrument. It is to be noted, however, that at no time did defendant confess that he forged or negotiated the mortgage set out in the indictment in this case. He denied the allegations contained in said indictment.