Jones

As summed up in the supplemental opening brief of defendant and appellant, E. Gertrude Jones, in what she calls conclusions, the questions raised by appellant, particularly when they are closely analyzed, amount to not much more than a contention that an escrow agreement is not a document subject to forgery. At least that is the interpretation that we put upon the so-called conclusions, which are set forth in one paragraph, as follows:

The instructions complained of, which defined conspiracy and which stated just how far the acts of each conspirator bind the remaining conspirators, and the instruction that states how far their declarations are admissible against the rest of the conspirators, are, we think, correct and were properly given in this case, for the reason that the defendant Jones is jointly charged with two other defendants with the commission of the crimes alleged to have been committed, although she is the sole appellant before this court. She was not charged with conspiracy to commit a crime, and she was not found guilty of the crime of conspiracy.

From appellant’s opening brief and from said supplemental brief of defendant and appellant and from the appellant’s…

I concur in the judgment. It may be that a single escrow instruction, made by one party, is not a contract. But where such instruction is accompanied by another instruction given by the other party, and the two documents are intended to and do contain the complete terms of a single transaction, they constitute a written contract, and a contract so written, is capable of forgery.

The instructions concerning the law of conspiracy were appropriate in this case, in order to make clear the principle that although appellant did not actually commit, with her own hand, the act of forging the instruments, she was responsible as a principal, if the forgeries were committed by another person with whom appellant had conspired for the accomplishment of the felonious acts described in the indictment.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on September 24, 1929, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on October 7, 1929.

All the Justices present concurred.