People v. Eppinger

Criminal Law—Forgery—Making of Fictitious Instrument—Improper Designation of Offense.—An information charging a defendant with forgery in making and forging a fictitious instrument purporting to be the check of a person who has no existence, with-intent to defraud, improperly designates the offense as forgery; but where the information specifies acts constituting the offense, under section 476 of the Penal Code, of making or passing a fictitious instrument in writing, and is sufficiently clear to show that the prosecution is under that section, the additional designation of the offense as “ forgery” is imma. terial.

Id.—Forgery a Statutory Offense—Fictitious Check—Distinct Offense.—Forgery is a statutory offense, and the charge of that offense against the accused must be found within the terms of the statute; and though by the criminal law of England the making of a fictitious check would be punishable as a forgery, that offense is a distinct offense with a distinctly designated punishment, under section 476 of the Penal Code.

Id.—Pleading—Sufficiency of Information—Presumption of Innocence.—An information must contain that which shows on its face that' a crime has been committed by the accused, and if the matters charged , in it are as consistent with the innocence of the accused as with his guilt, the presumption of his innocence will overcome the accusation of guilt, and the accused is not to be subjected to a trial of the charge.

Id.—Character of Fictitious Signature—Copartnership Name—Insufficient Information.—Under section 476 of the Penal Code the essence of the offense is the making, with an intent to defraud another, of an obligation of some “bank, corporation, copartnership, or individual,” when in fact there is no such obligor in existence, and the information must state which class of obligors specified in the statute is claimed to have been assumed by the defendant; and an information setting out a fictitious check apparently signed by a copartnership name, and merely alleging that there is no individual of that name in existence, is insufficient.

Id.—Ambiguous' Signature—Name oe Firm or Corporation—Necessary Averments.—Where the signature to the check may be either that of a copartnership or of a corporation it must he alleged in the information that there was no copartnership in existence by that name, and that there was no corporation in existence by that name.

Id.—Evidence—City Directory—Existence op Firm.—A city directory showing therefrom that the name signed to the check does not appear therein is competent for the purpose of proving that there is no firm of the name appended to the signature.

Id.—Testimony op Police Oppicer.—It is competent to prove by the testimony of a police officer that he has made inquiries for such a firm, without success.