State v. Hatfield

Citations

• 65 Wash. 550
• 118 P. 735
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 970

Syllabus

<p>Forgery —• Uttering — Presumption and Burden oe Proof — Instructions. The presumption from tbe uttering of a forged deed is one of fact for tbe jury and not of law, and it is error to instruct that the fact of uttering is presumptive proof of the defendant’s guilty knowledge of forgery; since the weight of the circumstances of uttering was for the jury, and it did not shift the burden of proof.</p> <p>Forgery — Evidence — Admissibility. Upon a prosecution for uttering a forged deed, with guilty knowledge of the forgery, it is admissible to introduce in evidence a purported corporate seal of a fictitious abstract company, which might have been used in fabricating titles in that county, which was found in an office occupied by the defendant two months previously (Parker, J., dissenting).</p> <p>Fobgeby — Evidence—Stjjteiciency. A conviction for uttering a forged deed is sufficiently sustained by proof of the forgery, where the grantor and his daughter testified that he was in another state at the time the deed purports to have been executed in this state, and that he did not sign it, although the state did not call the notary who certified to the acknowledgment, where the notary was jointly informed against with the defendant.</p>