Volume 38 — Washington Reports, Second Series

[1] DIVORCE — NATURE OF REMEDY — STATUTORY JURISDICTION. Divorce is a statutory proceeding, and the jurisdiction and authority of the courts are prescribed by legislative enactment; and the court does not have any power that cannot be inferred from a broad interpretation thereof. [2] SAME. The 1949 divorce act does not empower the court to exercise the prerogatives peculiar to other statutory proceedings. [3] SAME — LIQUIDATION FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. The court has no power to compel a liquidation for the benefit of creditors as an incident to a divorce decree. [4] SAME — JURISDICTION — LIMITS AS TO DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY. When the ultimate purpose of a provision in a divorce decree is not related or incident to the rights of the parties between themselves or to burdens imposed upon property on behalf of the children, the court must be held to have acted outside the scope of the divorce act and hence without jurisdiction. [5] SAME. The purpose of a provision in a divorce decree directing that certain property of the parties be sold and the proceeds, after payment of encumbrances against the property and costs of sale, be applied pro rata on payment of claims of creditors of the parties, is compatible only with a liquidation proceeding and is not incident to any purpose within the scope of the divorce act; and the court therefore acted in excess of its jurisdiction. [1] See 17 Am. Jur. 151.

[1] FORGERY — ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE — USE OF FICTITIOUS NAME. Under Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2590, the definition of forgery includes signing and cashing a check under a fictitious name, the check being drawn on a bank which had no account under such name. [2] TRIAL — TAKING CASE FROM JURY — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, or a motion to that effect, admits the truth of the plaintiff's evidence and all inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom, and requires that the evidence be interpreted most strongly against the defendant and most favorably to the plaintiff. [3] CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE — CORPUS DELICTI — ELEMENTS REQUIRED. To establish the <italic>corpus delicti</italic> of any crime, there must be shown to have existed a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of such act or result. [4] SAME — CORPUS DELICTI — CONFESSIONS — INDEPENDENT PROOF. The confession of a person charged with the commission of a crime is not sufficient to establish the <italic>corpus delicti</italic>, but if there is independent proof thereof, such confession may then be considered in connection therewith and the <italic>corpus</italic> <italic>delicti</italic> established by a combination of the independent proof and the confession; and the independent proof need not be such as would establish the <italic>corpus delicti</italic> beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of the proof, it being sufficient if it <italic>prima facie</italic> establishes the <italic>corpus</italic> <italic>delicti.</italic> [5] FORGERY — EVIDENCE — CORPUS DELICTI. In a prosecution for forgery, where it was charged that the defendant signed and cashed a check under a fictitious name, the check being drawn on a bank which had no account under such name, testimony of a witness that he knew the defendant under his true name, plus the testimony of an officer of the bank on which the check was drawn that there was no account there under the fictitious name, constitutes the necessary independent evidence to permit consideration of the defendant's confession to establish the <italic>corpus delicti.</italic> [6] SAME — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY. In such a prosecution, held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury that the defendant was guilty of first degree forgery. [7] APPEAL AND ERROR — BRIEFS — SETTING OUT INSTRUCTIONS — NECESSITY. An assignment of error based on instructions given will not be<page_number>Page 476</page_number> considered where the instructions are not set out in full in the appellant's brief as required by Rule of Supreme Court 42 (1)(f), 34A Wn.2d 45. [8] TRIAL — INSTRUCTIONS — REQUESTS — INSTRUCTIONS PARTIALLY INCORRECT. Error may not be successfully established on the failure of the trial court to give a requested instruction if it is not correct in its entirety. [9] FORGERY — TRIAL — INSTRUCTIONS. In a prosecution for forgery, a requested instruction that if a check is executed by the party purporting to convey, it is not forgery, was properly refused. [5] See 9 A.L.R. 407; 23 Am. Jur. 681.