People v. Lundin

Citations

• 120 Cal. 308
• 52 P. 807
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 759

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Laav—Forgery—Want oe Authority to Sign Check—Sufficiency of Proof.—Where one whose name was forged to a cheek by the defendant testified that he knew the defendant, and had had business transactions with him, and that he had not signed the cheek, nor authorized the defendant to sign his name thereto, the evidence is sufficient to justify the jury in believing that the name of the witness was the name intended to be signed on the check, and the forgery is sufficiently made out.</p> <p>Id.—Proof of Want of Authority from TJnknoavn Person. — Where the difficulty is presented of proving that the defendant did not sign the forged check under authority of some unknown person bearing the name signed, the evidence of the prosecution will not be restricted within close limits, and, in the absence of some showing to the contrary, it will not require much evidence tending to show a failure 'of authorization to defendant upon the part of the person whose name is signed to the instrument, and where one or more persons bearing the same name as'that signed to the check testified that they did not know the defendant, such evidence, if material, is sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that such persons being strangers to the defendant, did not authorize him to sign either of their names to the check.</p> <p>In.--Instructions Favorable to Defendant.—Objections of the defendant to instructions, which if erroneous, are too favorable to the defendant, will not be considered upon his appeal.</p> <p>Id.—Delay of Trial by Appeal of Defendant—Motion to Dismiss Information.—A delay of the trial for more than sixty days caused by an appeal of the defendant, is not within the provision of the statute in regard to such delay, and a motion to dismiss the information upon the ground that the defendant had not been brought to trial within sixty days after the filing of the information was properly denied.</p>