May v. State

Citations

• 115 Miss. 708
• 76 So. 636

Syllabus

<p>1. Names. Idem sonans.</p> <p>The words “bowles” and “bowels” are not idem sonans; the first being a word of one syllable and the second a word of two syllables. The different positions of the letter “1” in the two words make two entirely different words.</p> <p>2. Forgery. Indictment.. Extrinsic explanatory facts.</p> <p>Where extrinsic facts are necessary to be known and considered along with the writing, in order to constitute forgery, an indictment therefor must set out such facts as well as the instru-ment itself.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>In a prosecution for unlawfully uttering a forged check signed “T. A. Bowels,” the indictment alleging that the check was a forged check and that defendant intended to defraud certain parties, among others the bank on which the check was drawn and “T. A. Bowels,” the indictment should have alleged the extrinsic explanatory facts that a person by the name of “T. A. Bowles, lived in another town and that defendant, when he cashed the check, told the person who cashed it that it was Bowles’ check.</p> <p>4. Forgery. Indictment. Variance.</p> <p>Where there is a variance between the indictment and the proof, a motion by the defendant to exclude the testimony of the state should be sustained.</p> <p>5. Forgery. Uttering forged instruments. Instruction. Statutes.</p> <p>In a prosecution, under section 1192, Code 1906, for unlawfully uttering and publishing a forged check, an instruction for the state which, while attempting the statutory definition of the offense, omitted to state that the check was uttered “with intent to defraud” was erroneous.</p>