Darby v. State

Citations

• 41 Fla. 274

Syllabus

<p>1. It is not error for the trial court to refuse to require the State to elect upon which count of the indictment it will rely for conviction where there are two counts for falsely and fraudulently altering a county warrant, both alleging the alteration of the same paper, based upon the same transaction, and the only difference being as to the person or body corporate that was intended toi be defrauded.</p> <p>2. Within the meaning of Section 2479, Revised Statutes, a person can commit the crime of forgery with intent to defraud a county.</p> <p>3. Under an indictment for the forgery of a county warrant that does not pass current as money, proof on the part of the State that the warrant went into the hands of the accused in its original unaltered condition, and that he subsequently passed it for value in a forged condition, is sufficient to show that the accused either altered the order himself, or caused it to be done, or by conspiracy with others assented to the alteration, and such testimony, in the absence of satisfactory showing that he had no complicity with the forgery, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty.</p>