
    CARTER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 22, 1911.)
    1. Foegeby (§ 29) — Checks — Indictment-Identification of Payee.
    Where an alleged forged cheek was payable to “Abilene D. G. Co. or bearer,” it being payable to bearer, it was not essential to a conviction that the indictment should contain explanatory averments as to who was meant by “Abilene D. G. Co.”
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Dec. Dig. § 29.]
    2. Cbiminal Law (§ 1090) — Appeal — Evidence — Bill of Exceptions.
    Objections to the admission of testimony cannot be considered on appeal, unless presented by a bill of exceptions.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2816; Dee. Dig. § 1090.]
    3. Cbiminal Law (§ 442) — Evidence—Docu-MENTAEY EVIDENCE.
    Where accused was shown to be the man who executed an alleged forged check signed by him, to which he signed an assumed name, the check was properly admitted in evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 442.]
    4. Cbiminal Law (§ 829) — Tbial—Request to Chabge.
    A special instruction included in the main charge may be properly refused.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2011; Dec. Dig. § 829.]
    5. Foegeby (§ 44) — Evidence—Checks—Identification of Dkaweb.
    The state proved that accused falsely represented himself to be B., and claiming to be B. purchased goods in that name, and in payment thereof executed a check in the name of B. Held, that such facts establish a prima facie case of forgery without proof that B. was a fictitious person, or that defendant did not have the right to sign B.’s name.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Dec. Dig. § 44.]
    Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; Thomas L. Blanton, Judge.
    J. H. Carter was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    King & Isaacs and H. N. Hickman, for appellant. C. E. Lane,- Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes.
    
   HARPER, J.

In this case the appellant was convicted of the offense of forgery, in the district court of Taylor county, Tex., and Ms punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

Appellant was indicted in this case charged with forging the following instrument: “Winters, Texas, 1 — 24—1910. The Winters State Bank. Pay to Abilene D. G. Co. or bearer $16.75. Sixteen and 75/ioo.dol-lars. [Signed] G. A. Brown.”-

The evidence is that defendant went into the store of the Abilene Dry Goods Company and purchased some goods; that he told the clerk waiting on him that his name was G. A. Brown; that he gave the above check in payment of the goods; that he wrote the check for $5 more than the goods he purchased, and in addition to the goods also received $5 in money; that he signed the name of G. A. Brown to the check in the presence of the clerk; his real name being J. H. Carter. The evidence does not disclose whether or not there is such a person in existence as G. A. Brown. The appellant moved to quash the indictment on the ground that same was made payable to “Abilene D. G. Co. or bearer,” in that there are no explanatory averments as to who was meant by “Abilene D. G. Co.,” and whether same was a partnership or corporation. The check being made payable to bearer, the court did not err in overruling the motion to quash. Reeves v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 604, 103 S. W. 894; Forcy v. State, 131 S. W. 585.

In his motion for new trial defendant complains of the admissibility of the testimony of the witness Whaley. There is no bill of exception showing that defendant objected to this testimony, and in the absence of a bill we cannot consider the objection.

The defendant also complains of the action of the court in admitting the cheek in evidence. The state proved that defendant signed the name of G. A. Brown to the check; that he delivered the same to Jolly, cashier of the Abilene Dry Goods Company, in payment of goods purchased, and obtained $5 in money thereon. The defendant being shown to be the man who executed the instrument, the court did not err in admitting it in evidence.

The defendant also complains of the action of the court in refusing the special instructions requested. The first was a peremptory instruction to find defendant not guilty. There was no error in refusing this instruction. The second special instruction was included in the main charge; while the third special instruction was clearly upon the weight to be given the testimony.

The next complaint is that the testimony is insufficient to support the verdict; that the state did not prove that G. A. Brown was a fictitious person, or that defendant did not have the right to sign G. A. Brown's name to the check. The evidence shows that he represented himself to be G. A. Brown; that he purchased the goods claiming to be such person, when in fact his name was not G. A. Brown, but his name was J. H. Carter. If he had authority to sign G. A. Brown’s name to the check, if in fact there was such person, these facts were peculiarly in the knowledge of defendant, and he could easily have shown this fact. The state made its case when it proved that defendant’s name was J. I-I. Carter; that he represented himself to be named G. A. Brown, and signed that name to a check, and obtained goods and money thereon in that name. Johnson v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 272, 33 S. W. 231; Davis v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 117, 29 S. W. 478; Brewer v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 22 S. W. 41, 40 Am. St. Rep. 760.

The judgment is affirmed.  