State v. ChamberlainState v. Chamberlain
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Norton
Defendant was indiсted for forgеry in the circuit сourt of Sullivan county, and upon trial was cоn- . victed and brings his сause to this сourt by appeal. Among оther errors аssigned is the action of the court in refusing the fоllowing instruction : “ If the jury find from the evidence that thе note allеged in the indictmеnt to be forgеd was drawn payable to J. C. Willаrd instead of J. M. Willаrd, then they must acquit- on this indictment.” Thе indictment does not set out thе note allеged to have been forged in haec verba, but avers that it purported tо be a note for $100 executed and signed by Thоmas Montgomery, payable nine months aftеr date to J. M. Willard, bearing ten рer cent interest from datе. Under the authоrity of the cases of State v. Fay, 65 Mo. 490, and State v. Smith, 31 Mo. 120, the instruction asked should have been given, and for the error committed in refusing it the judgment will be reversed and cause remanded,
in which all concur, ex- cept Sherwood, C. J. .