Peterson v. State

Citations

• 25 Tex. Ct. App. 70
• 7 S.W. 530
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 237

Syllabus

<p>1. Uttering a Forged Instrument—Indictment.—See the statement of the case for the charging part of an indictment held sufficient to charge the offense of knowingly uttering a forged instrument.</p> <p>8. Practice—Continuance.—Failing to show the probable truth of the-absent testimony, and being otherwise insufficient in substance, the application for continuance in this case was properly refused.</p> <p>B. Same—Definitions—Charge op the Court.—‘'Knowingly” and “pass,” as those words are used in the statute denouncing the offense of uttering - a forged instrument, are not words of technical signification, and the omission of the trial court to define the same to the jury was not error.. i. Same—Sentence—Practice in Court of Appeals.—The conviction^ as shown by the verdict, being for uttering a forged instrument, and the sentence erroneously reciting that it was for forgery, the sentence is reformed by this court to conform to the verdict.</p>