People v. James

Citations

• 110 Cal. 155
• 42 P. 479
• 1895 Cal. LEXIS 1032

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Forgery by Indians—Order for Intoxicating Liquor. A forged order for the delivery of intoxicating liquor to bearer is, upon its face, capable of being used to defraud those who may act upon it as genuine, and is within the statute against forgery; and the fact that the defendants accused of the forgery are Indians and that the furnishing of intoxicating liquor to Indians is positively prohibited by law and made a felony, does not .prevent the order from being the subject of forgery; and the fact that it was presented and passed by the defendants is a false factor as to its being the subject of forgery, and the defendants may be properly convicted of the forgery.</p> <p>Id.—Contract—Test of Forgery.—A writing which is a nudum pactum is not the subject of forgery; but the test of the forgery of a contract is whether, upon its face, it may have the effect to defraud those who may act upon it as genuine, or the person in whose name it is forged, and it is immaterial whether or not it covers a subject matter which makes it void as against public policy, or whether or not it possesses the legal requisites of negotiable paper or of an order, or whether or not the person in whose name it purports to be made has the legal capacity to make it, or whether or not the person to whom it is directed is bound to act upon it if genuine, or has a remedy over.</p> <p>Id.—Variance in Name of Person to be Defrauded—Idem Sonans.—• Where the forged order is signed Frank “Crushes,” and the information alleges that it was forged with intent to defraud one Frank “Cru. ' sius, ” there is no material variance or difference in the names within the doctrine of idem sonans; and a demurrer to the information on account of such variance is properly overruled.</p>