Sherrod v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court
Sherrod v. State, 90 Miss. 856 (Miss. 1907)
44 So. 813
Whitfield

Sherrod v. State

Opinion of the Court

Whitfield, C. I.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

There is nothing in the record to show any action of the *862court upon the demurrer to the indictment. In answer to the certiorari the circuit clerk certifies that there was no action taken, and that none appears anywhere on the minutes of the court. It is well settled that in such case the demurrer should be treated as waived or withdrawn. 10 Ency. Plead. & Prac., 573. If there were any defects in the indictment, they were only such as might well have been cured by amendment.

The court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to testify that he did not owe Cynthia Green anything. Cynthia Green had asserted, on her direct examination, that he did. She was permitted, on her direct examination, to testify that her husband had a policy of insurance issued by the Knights of Honor for $400, and that Dr. Sherrod owed her that sum of money on account of that policy, and that he gave her $100 on that account, and was to pay her $50 along until he had paid the whole $400. The instrument in the case is a note for $100, payable in two installments of $50 each. Cynthia Green was asked, on cross-examination, whether she got $100 from Dr. Sherrod in payment of the policy issued by the Knights of Honor to-her husband, and whether Dr. Sherrod was going to pay her from time to time until he had paid $400, and she replied in the affirmative to all these questions, and stated further, that -he was paying her all he did pay her on account of that policy; The policy was sought to be introduced in evidence by the defendant, and it appeared from that, and the evidence in the case, that her husband had no policy, that it had lapsed, and that there was nothing due, of course, to her on such policy. Defendant’s counsel offered to show, in connection with this evidence referred to, that Dr. Sherrod was not an officer of the order at all, that he never collected any assessments, that the policy had lapsed, and that nothing was due to Cynthia Green; and the court excluded this testimony. This was erroneous. The testimony should have been received. Cynthia Green was then further asked on the cross-examination if she had not told certain witnesses that she did not remember whether her hus*863band had kept his insurance up or not, and, further, whether 'she had not told some of these witnesses that she knew he had not paid his assessments, and that the policy had lapsed. Much testimony along this line as to Cynthia Green’s statements was offered to be introduced. Further than this, it was offered to be shown hy the defendant, on the cross-examination of Cynthia Green, that she had told Andrew Courtney that she owed Dr. Sherrod $100. All this was offered to be shown on the cross-examination of Cynthia Green by Andrew Courtney, E. L. Haekworth, and Caroline Valentine. In addition to all this, appellant offered to' show by Ella Young that Dr. Sherrod went to Cynthia Green to get a payment on this alleged debt of $100, and that she recognized the debt, and said that she would soon be down to his office and pay him, and, specifically, that she (Cynthia Green) then said, after her husband’s death in the spring or summer thereafter, when Sherrod had tried to collect part of the alleged debt from her: “Ella, Dr. Sherrod certainly is a good man. He loaned me $100, and I am going to pay him. Anybody that would not pay Dr. Sherrod would not pay anybody.” All of the testimony which we have just set out was offered to be established, on the cross-examination of Cynthia Green and by the various witnesses above enumerated, but was excluded by the court. It should all have been admitted as going to show the motive of Cynthia Green in denying her alleged signature to the instrument charged to have been forged. It manifestly tended strongly to show that her testimony in denying that she signed the alleged note was probably false, for the reason that she was interested to escape liability. It all went to motive, and was therefore competent.

We do not at this time notice any other error assigned.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name
Joshua P. Sherrod v. State of Mississippi
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
1. Criminal Law and Procedure. Indictment. Demurrer. Waiver. Supreme court practice. On appeal to the supreme court a demurrer to an indictment will be treated as waived or withdrawn, in the absence of all record evidence of its having been otherwise disposed of in the court below. 2. Same. Forgery. Evidence. Witnesses. Contradiction. In a prosecution for forging a promissory note, the defense being that the note was genuine and 'given for money loaned by defendant, if the prosecutrix be permitted to testify, it appearing that she received from defendant a sum of money equal to the amount of the note, that as an officer of an insurance company defendant collected an insurance policy for a greater sum on the life of her deceased husband and that the money received was a partial payment on that account, it will be error to refuse defendant’s offer to show (a) that he was not an officer of the insurance company, (b) had ne'ver made collection of the insurance mentioned, and (c) that nothing was ever due on the policy, it having lapsed before the death of the insured. 3. Same. Where in such case the prosecutrix testified that defendant was indebted to her, the defendant, being a witness in his own behalf, should not be prohibited from testifying that he was not so indebted. 4. Same. Where in such a prosecution for forgery- the prosecutrix testified that she was not indebted to defendant but that he was indebted to her on the proceeds of insurance on the life of her deceased husband, it was error, proper predicate having been laid, to refuse to allow defendant to show that she had stated that her husband failed to pay premiums and the policy had lapsed before his death and that he owed defendant the amount of the note.