State v. Cottrell

Citations

• 56 Wash. 543
• 106 P. 179
• 1910 Wash. LEXIS 842

Syllabus

<p>Forgery — Evidence — Handwriting — Photographs — Admissibility. In a prosecution for forgery it is not error to admit in evidence a photographic copy of a letter supposed to have been written by the accused, introduced for the purpose of comparison by the experts, where the accused, after examining the photograph, admitted that it was a photographic copy of her handwriting.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Conduct of Counsel — Persisting in Improper Cross-Examination. In a prosecution for forgery, in which the accused, who had been living with her mother, testified that she went to Spokane to engage in work to meet pressing obligations, it is prejudicial error, requiring a reversal, for the state, on cross-examination and after objections had been sustained, to persistently question the accused with respect to her financial embarrassments in an effort to show that they arose out of litigation with her mother in which the accused was charged with “swindling” and “defrauding” her mother and was only prevented from so doing by a decision of the highest court of a sister state, the litigation being foreign to the issue and the.only purpose being to discredit her before the jury by improper questions.</p> <p>Forgery — Evidence—Handwriting—Identification. In a prosecution for forgery of a cheek of one J., another check purporting to be signed by him, admitted for comparison, is sufficiently identified when J. testified that he believed it was genuine.</p> <p>Witnesses — Evidence—Handwriting — Trial. The practice of permitting a witness to illustrate his testimony, in comparing handwriting on a forged cheek with admitted handwriting, by illustrations on a blackboard cannot be commended, for the illustrations cannot be preserved in the record.</p> <p>Forgery — Uttering Check — Identification —Evidence—Sufficiency. There is sufficient evidence of the uttering of a forged check, where the manager and forewoman in a store each testified that the accused purchased goods, uttered