Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

155 Ala. 96

Sims v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 21, 1908

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1908-04-21

<p>1. Forgery; Subject; Tax Receipt. — A receipt for the payment of taxes is a subject of forgery under section 4720, Code 1896.</p> <p>2. Same; Indictment.- — An indictment charging that defendant, with intent to injure and defraud did alter a receipt for the payment of money substantially as follows, etc. (reciting a receipt for the payment of taxes) by inserting therein after the words “Assessor’s demand notice, 50c,” the words, “Poll tax $1.50,” and inserting after the word “Total,” where it last appears, “the figures $3.00,” etc., so as to change the receipt to show a payment of poll tax was a sufficient indictment under section 4720, Code 1896, and was in compliance with form 50 for indictments and sufficient.</p> <p>3. Evidence; Best and Secondary Evidence; Loss of Original. — Before secondary evidence is admissible to prove the contents of a writing alleged to be lost, it must be shown that every reasonable effort which would result in its production has been made without avail.</p> <p>4. Same; Search. — Where it appeared that the receipt was lost or misplaced' while the notes of testimony before the grand jury were either in the office of the testifying witness, or in the office of the clerk of the court, and that witness had made diligent search for the same in his office, but could not find the same, secondary evidence of the contents of the receipt was inadmissible in the absence of proof that the place where the notes were kept in the clerk’s office and from which they had been removed, had been searched and the receipt not found.</p>

Relies on Boulden v. State · O'Neal v. McKinna · Alabama Construction Co. v. Meador

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1908-04-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1987

9 state decisions

40190819101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ANDERSON, J.

¶1The indictment complied with the statute. Section 4720 of the Criminal Code of 1896, and form 50. It was not, therefore, subject to the demurrer interposed. The receipt therein described is such an instrument as is made the subject of forgery by the statute.

¶2Before secondary evidence is admissible to prove the contents of an instrument in writing, claimed to be lost, it must be shown that every reasonable effort which would result in its production was made without avail. 1 Greenleaf on Ev. 558; O’Neal v. McKinnan, 116 Ala. 606, 22 South. 905; Boulden v. State, 102 Ala. 78, 15 South. 341; Alabama Construction Co. v. Meador, 143 Ala. 336, 39 South. 216. In the case at bar, the witness *99Lacy testified that the receipt in question was lost or misplaced “while the notes were either in his office or the clerk’s office, and that he had made diligent search for same in his office and could not find it.” From this evidence the receipt could have been-left in the clerk’s office, when Lacy removed the grand jury notes therefrom, yet there is no evidence that the place where the notes were kept in the clerk’s office, and from which the notes ivere removed, was searched. It might be that the original could have been found in the clerk’s office, had a search been made for same. A proper predicate not having been shown, the trial court erred in admitting oral evidence as to the contents of the receipt, over the objection of the defendant.

¶3The judgment of the county court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

¶4Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, C. J., and Simpson and Denson, JJ., concur, cur.
/155/ala/96 · .json · Public domain