Commonwealth v. Leilb

Citations

• 76 Pa. Super. 413
• 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 162

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Forgery—Uttering forged instrument — Tax receipts — Duplicate tax receipts — Bvidence.</p> <p>A duplicate state tax receipt, not containing the seal of the ¡state treasurer may be the subject of a charge of forgery.</p> <p>In a prosecution for forgery, and for uttering a forged instrument, judgment on the verdict will be sustained, where the defendant is found guilty of forgery, even although the only proof of the forgery within the county wherein the indictment was brought, is found in the evidence of the uttering therein of the forged instrument, as to which latter charge the defendant is found not guilty.</p> <p>Forgery and knowingly uttering a forged instrument are two distinct offenses; although they may be joined in one count if the forging and uttering were practically simultaneous and arose from the same act or transaction. An acquittal of forgery does not bar a prosecution for uttering the same forged instrument, nor does an acquittal of uttering a forged instrument preclude a subsequent prosecution for forging it.</p> <p>In the absence of direct evidence as to where a forgery was actually done, proof of the uttering of the forged instrument is prima facie or presumptive evidence that the forgery was committed in the county where it was uttered.</p>