Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

92 Tex. Crim. 282

242 S.W 1055

Morley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1922-06-21

<p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1938

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1922-06-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LATTIMORE, Judge.

¶1 — Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Harris County of the offense of forgery, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

¶2 There are no bills of exception shown in the record. ■ Neither do there appear any objections to the law of the ease as contained in the charge of the trial court. We have carefully examined the facts. *283 Appellant did not testify. It was shown without dispute that on the occasion in question he gave to the prosecuting witness a check which bore a signature other than that of appellant, which check was turned down by the bank as being of one who had no account at such bank. The statement of facts seems to sustain the proposition that the name signed to said check was a fictitious one. The court submitted the law of both forgery and passing a forged instrument.

¶3 Believing the evidence sufficient to justify the verdict, and finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.

¶4 Affirmed.

/92/texcrim/282 · .json · Public domain