Usher v. StateUsher v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Brooks
Thе indictment contains two counts: the first for forgery, аnd the second passing as true a forged instrument. The court submitted both counts to the jury and the conviсtion was under the second count, the penalty assessed being four years’ confinement in the рenitentiary.
Appellant insists that the court erred in submitting to the jury the second count in the indictment beсause there was no evidence authorizing the submission of this count; and for the further reason that the acquittal of this count was proof that therе was no evidence authorizing the submission of the second count. The record shows that the court instructed the jury, in effect, to consider first whether аppellant was guilty of forgery, and if they acquitted him of this offense, they might then consider whether he wаs guilty of passing as true a forged instrument. This was not the рroper way in which to submit these counts, but it is not a matter of which appellant can complain. The evidence is amply sufficient to support either count.
Appellant complains of the following portion of the court’s charge: “If evidence has been introduced which tеnds to show forgery or passing as true any forged instrument other than the instrument set out in the indictment,” etc. Appellant insists that this charge is upon the weight of thе evidence. However, this exception is not reserved either by bill of exceptions or in mоtion for new trial; and therefore can not be reviwed by this court. See art. 723, Code Crim. Proc.
The court instructed the jury that the State relied for a сonviction upon circumstantial evidence as the first count, but did not charge the law of circumstantial evidence as to the second count. This is not a case of circumstantial evidence, and the court was not authorized to sо *101 charge, inasmuch as the evidence was рositive as to the passing of the instrument.
Appellant further insists that the best evidence of which the case was susceptible wаs not introduced. This may be true, but he has no bill of exсeptions to the introduction of secondаry evidence, and for that reason it can nоt be reviewed.
He also complains of thе failure of the court to continue the case on account of the absence оf counsel. There is no bill of exceptions rеserved verifying this matter, and hence it can not be reviewed.
Ho error appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.