Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Ala. 161

McGuire v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1861

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1861-01-15

FROM the City Court' of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. Alex. McKjNSTry. The indictment in this case was in these words : “ The grand jury of said county charge, that, before the finding of this indictment, John McGuire forged'an instrument of writing, purporting to be an order, drawn by Sister Adeline, on George Battiste, for nine dollars, with intent to defraud.

Relies on Crist v. State · Thompson v. State · State v. Pile

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 1930

15 state decisions

6018611870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

STONE, J.

¶1The oath administered -to -the jury in this case was sufficient. — Crist v. The State, 21 Ala. 137 ; Pile v. The State, 5 Ala. 72.

¶2[2.] The indictment concludes,- “ ágáinst the peace anS dignity of the State tof Alabama,” and that is sufficient. Const. Ala., art. 5, sec. 17.

¶3[3-4.j Each count-fe4he indictment is sufficient. — Code, 31-58-65; Code, 703.

¶4[5.1 Thete is -no evidence in the record that Sister Ads-*164line, was a fictitious person; and Therefore, the first charge . asked was abstract, so far as we can discover. There was no error in refusing it.

¶5[6.] The second; charge asked, should mot have ..been given. It demands an acquittal, if the evidence failed to prove that the order was written by the defendant in Mobile county. If the proof showed that the prisoner, in Mobile county, uttered and published the order as true, knowing it to be forged, and with intent to defraud, the law requires that he should be adjudged guilty of the forgery of the instrument. The charge restricted the , right to convict within too narrow bounds, and was rightly -refused. — Code, § 3165 ; Thompson v. The State, 30 Ala. 28; Bishop v. The State, ib. 34.

¶6Judgment of the city court affirmed, and its sentence To „be executed.

/37/ala/161 · .json · Public domain