18 P.2d 391 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1933
On each of six separate counts of an information filed against him defendant was convicted of the crime of forgery. From the ensuing judgment, as well as from an order by which his motion for a new trial was denied, defendant appeals to this court.
In each count of the information the instrument alleged to have been forged and "passed" was a check on Seaboard National Bank of Los Angeles, purportedly drawn by "Baker Ice Machine Company, L. Baker, H. Spencer." The only variations that distinguished any one of such checks from either of the others were its serial number, its date, the amount for which, and the person in whose favor, it was drawn. The following is a copy of one of such checks:
"Baker Ice Machine Co., Inc. "Los Angeles Factory No. 33292
"Los Angeles, April 14, 1932.
"Pay to the order of Antonio Gomez. . . . . . . . . $18.54 Eighteen Dollars Fifty Four Cents only Dollars
"BAKER ICE MACHINE CO. "L. BAKER, "H. SPENCER.
"To Seaboard National Bank "Los Angeles, California."
In effect, it is contended by appellant that each of the several verdicts returned by the jury was "contrary to law *705 . . . and to the evidence"; that is to say, that neither the verdict nor the judgment was supported by the evidence.
On the part of the prosecution it was shown that a large number of blank checks had been stolen from Baker Ice Machine Company; that defendant admitted having had such blank checks in his possession; and that in each instance a stolen blank check was made use of in uttering a so-called forged check; also that defendant "passed" each of the checks in question. As to three of such checks only, testimony was received in substance that defendant indorsed each of them; but as to the three remaining checks, no evidence was offered which tended to show that defendant had indorsed either of them. The evidence disclosed the facts that Baker Ice Machine Company was a foreign corporation; that it had a branch office in the city of Los Angeles; that one J.M. McKenzie was its local manager; and that the said corporation had a banking account with Seaboard National Bank. By reference to "signature cards" and other records of Seaboard National Bank, the assistant cashier thereof testified that the bank was "authorized" to honor Baker Ice Machine Company checks on the signature of "J.L. Baker, President; F.J. Bette, Secretary; J.M. McKenzie, Manager of the Corporation, or anyother by said J.M. McKenzie, and there are two other signatures, Charles E. Hollingsworth, and Laurel K. Brink."
Another witness, who was "head of the bookkeeping department of the Seaboard National Bank", testified that the bank was not "authorized" to honor any checks drawn by H. Spencer or L. Baker, or "by the joint signatures of those two names"; and that the "authority" to honor checks came from J.M. McKenzie, who was the local manager of Baker Ice Machine Company. A man who called himself the "office manager" of the branch office of Baker Ice Machine Company testified that he did not know defendant; that to his knowledge defendant was not "connected" with Baker Ice Machine Company; that none of the officers of that company was in Los Angeles; that "Mr. Baker's" name is J.L. Baker, and that the signature "L. Baker" on each of the questioned checks was not the signature of J.L. Baker; that he did not know L. Baker or H. Spencer; nor was he acquainted with the person in whose favor either of the questioned checks was drawn. *706
Section
[1] Reverting to the evidence introduced on the trial of the action, and applying to it the statutory requirements, it will be noticed that the evidence is lacking in sufficiency to support either of the several verdicts returned therein in at least the following particulars: Other than the mere passing of the check (not shown to have been forged), there was no specific, or even general, evidence of "intent to defraud" (see People v.Mitchell,
[4] By no evidence did it appear that the payee of either of the checks was a fictitious person; nor that defendant indorsed either of three of such checks; nor as to the three checks that he did indorse, that he was unauthorized by the payee thereof so to do — which latter fact was one of the essential elements of the crime to be proved by the prosecution. (People v. Lundin,supra; People v. Mitchell, supra.)
It follows that on each of the six counts of the information on which defendant was convicted, the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict returned by the jury. *708
It is ordered that the judgment and the order by which defendant's motion for a new trial was denied be and they are reversed.
Conrey, P.J., concurred.
York, J., dissented.
A petition by respondent to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on February 15, 1933.