Westbrook v. State

Citations

• 23 Tex. Ct. App. 401
• 5 S.W. 248
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92

Syllabus

<p>Forgery—Indictment—Repugnancy.—It is not essential that an indictment for forgery shall set out the forged instrument both by its purport and its tenor; nor is it necessary that it shall set out the name of the person intended to be defrauded, the allegation of the intent to defraud being sufficient. If, however, the indictment sets out the alleged forged instrument both by its purport and its tenor, any repugnancy between the two allegations is fatal to the indictment. The “ purport ” clause in the indictment in this case alleges the name of the injured party to be “ C. J. Chapman,” whereas the “ tenor ” clause alleges the name to be “ O. J. Chatman.” Held, that the obvious repugnancy between the two is fatal to the indictment. See the opinion on the question.</p>