People v. Munroe
Citations
- 4 Cal. Unrep. 66
- 33 P. 776
- 1893 Cal. LEXIS 1148
Syllabus
<p>Forgery—Order- for Teacher’s Salary.—Since the Assignment by a public school teacher of salary not yet earned is void, the false making of such an instrument does not constitute forgery. But if the instrument containing such intended assignment contain likewise a guaranty of payment of the sum assigned, and a provision that, if the sum is not collected by a certain time, it will be paid by the assignee, it is valid in part, and hence is a subject for forgery.</p> <p>Criminal Trial—Beading Evidence from Preliminary Examination.—Where a witness telegraphed and wrote to the district attorney from another state that, owing to business engagements in that state,he could not be present at the trial, which began about twelve days thereafter, and the return to a subpoena for such witness was that he could not be found within the county, there was a showing of such “due diligence” as justified the reading at the trial of his evidence taken at the preliminary examination before a committing magistrate, under Penal Code, section 686, providing for the reading of such, evidence upon its being satisfactorily shown to the court that the witness “with due diligence cannot be found within the state.”</p> <p>Forgery—Witness Befreshing Memory.—On a Prosecution for Forgery, where the prosecuting witness, states that he was present when the complaint was drawn by the district attorney, that they compared the copy therein of the instrument alleged to have been forged with the original, and that such copy was correct, it is proper, if the original is in defendant’s possession, and he refuses to produce it after notice so to do, to allow the witness to refresh his memory as to the original by reference to the copy in the complaint.</p> <p>Witnesses.—Where a Part of an Answer is not Besponsive to the question, and a part is directly so, but the whole is relevant, material, and competent, it is proper to refuse to strike it out as being irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent, and as bei
Judges: Haynes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Bangs v. DunnCalifornia Supreme Court· 1884-10-31· cited 22×
- People v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-06-25· cited 21×
- Ex parte FinleyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1884-12-19· cited 12×
- People v. FerrisCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 10×
- People v. TonielliCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-11-23· cited 10×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.