Ex parte Rogers

Citations

• 10 Tex. Ct. App. 655

Syllabus

<p>1. Forgery—Indictment—Variance.— When an indictment for forgery purports to set out the forged instrument according to its tenor, and in licee verba, any variance as to the words of the instrument, unless the variance be mere fault of spelling, is fatal to the indictment.</p> <p>3. Same—Evidence.— A distinct variance between the attestation clause of a deed alleged to be forged and the instrument as described heec verba in the indictment, disqualifies it as evidence.</p> <p>3. Same—Practice.—Before the State had concluded its evidence, and after the motion of the accused to suppress the alleged forged instrument as evidence, the court permitted the counsel for the State to dismiss the prosecution under the indictment, and held the accused in custody to enable the State’s counsel to file a complaint sufficient to charge the accused with the offense attempted to be set out in the indictment. Held, that the court did not err.</p> <p>4. Same — Former Jeopardy obtains when it appears that the former trial was for an offense identified by the proof with the one on trial, and the usual test is whether the evidence necessary to support the pending prosecution would have supported the former one. See this case, wherein the plea is not well taken.</p> <p>5. Same — Jurisdiction.— When it appears that a conspiracy to fabricote titles to lands in this State was entered into in Texas, and that one or more of the overt acts was perpetrated in Texas, the courts of this State have jurisdiction, independent of the act of 1876, to try the case, though it be shown that the actual fabrication was committed in another State by an agent or co-conspirator of the defendant.</p> <p>6. Same.—Independent of general principles, the statutes in force prior to the act of 1876 conferred such jurisdiction upon the courts of this State. See the opinion in extenso on the subject.</p>