People v. Lundin
Before: Searls
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial, and from an order denying a motion in arrest of judgment. Edward A. Belcher, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Searls, C. Defendant was charged by information with the crime of forgery, alleged to have been committed at the city and county of San Francisco, on or about December 18, 1895. To the information defendant pleaded: 1. Not guilty; 2. Once in jeopardy; 3. Former acquittal.
Upon the trial the defendant was found guilty as charged. The jury also found for the “people on former pleas” of once in jeopardy and former acquittal.
Thereupon judgment was entered that defendant be punished by imprisonment in the state prison of the state of California at San Quentin for the term of four years.
Defendant appeals from the judgment, from an order denying his motion for arrest of judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The determination of a single question is conclusive of the appeal. The defendant was charged with the forgery and uttering as genuine a certain check or instrument in writing, of which the following is a copy:
[126]“No. 1245. San Francisco, Dec. 16, ’95.
Pacific Coast Savings Society of San Francisco, Cal:
“Pay to John Nelson, or bearer ($600), six hundred dollars.
Clearing House No. 14. John F. Johnson.”
[Indorsed]: “John Nelson.”
At the trial there was evidence tending to show that about 7 o’clock p. m. of December 18, 1895, the defendant, John Lundin, who passed under the name of Thompson, in company with one Albrecht and a man named Nelson, who professed to be the indorser and payee of the foregoing check, called at the saloon and lunch-house of Emma Schoenemann (now Dorn) on Spear street, San Francisco, where they negotiated and' agreed to purchase, for and in the name of Nelson, from Mrs. Dorn, a one-half interest in her saloon for four hundred dollars, from which sum Mrs. Dorn was to pay Albrecht a commission of sixty dollars, and also a couple of dollars to defendant for his trouble.
Defendant produced and passed to Nelson a check of which the foregoing is a copy, and the latter gave it to Mrs. Dorn. Upon her inquiry the parties all declared the check was good. It being late, Mrs. Dorn declined to make a bill of sale of the property until the check could be cashed the next morning.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)