to plant a crop for himself; for, as said in an Indiana case, the machinery of the criminal law is not to be set in motion to redress merely private grievances, or to settle questions of property, where honest differences of opinion are involved."

FORGERY

111. Forgery, at common law, is the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's right.s

112. To constitute the crime

(a) The making or alteration must be false.

(b) It must be with intent to defraud.

(c) The instrument, as made or altered, must be of apparent legal efficacy to impose a liability, or, in case of alteration, to change a liability.

(d) The alteration must therefore be material.

113. Forgery is a misdemeanor at common law, but is very generally made a felony by statute.'

The Making

10

The instrument may be written with pen or pencil,1o or it may be wholly printed or engraved, as in case of a railroad or theater ticket.11 The crime may be committed by

7 Barlow v. State, 120 Ind. 56, 22 N. E. 88; Woodward v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 554, 28 S. W. 204; State v. Foote, 71 Conn. 737, 43 Atl. 488. But see Heron v. State, 22 Fla. 86.

8 4 Bl. Comm. 247. "Forgery, at common law, is the false making or materially altering, with intent to defraud, of any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability." 2 Bish. New Cr. Law, § 523.

2 Bish. New Cr. Law, § 609.

10 Baysinger v. State, 77 Ala. 63, 54 Am. Rep. 46.

11 Com. v. Ray, 3 Gray (Mass.) 446; In re Benson (C. C.) 34 Fed.

CLARK CR.L.3D ED.-25

writing or printing matter over another's genuine signature, as well as by signing another's name.12 Making another's mark, instead of signing his name, may be a forgery. 13 The crime may also be committed by signing one's own name in such a way as to make the writing purport to be by another person of the same or a similar name,' or by signing the name of a fictitious15 or deceased person,1o or person without legal capacity,17 as the name of such person. It is not forgery for one to sign a fictitious name if he signs it as his own, and the person injured thereby relied upon and gave credit to the person himself.18 Where, however,

14

12 Caulkins v. Whisler, 29 Iowa, 495, 4 Am. Rep. 236; Roberts v. State, 92 Ga. 451, 17 S. E. 262.

13 Rex v. Dunn, 2 East, P. C. 962. There may be forgery, though place for mark left blank. Lemasters v. State, 95 Ind. 367.

14 Com. v. Foster, 114 Mass. 311, 19 Am. Rep. 353; People v. Peacock, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 72; Barfield v. State, 29 Ga. 127, 74 Am. Dec. 49; U. S. v. Long (C. C.) 30 Fed. 678; State v. Farrell, 82 Iowa, 553, 48 N. W. 940; People v. Rushing, 130 Cal. 449, 62 Pac. 742, 80 Am. St. Rep. 141.

15 Rex v. Lockett, 1 Leach, 110; Sasser v. State, 13 Ohio, 453; People v. Davis, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 309; State v. Wheeler, 20 Or. 192, 25 Pac. 394, 10 L. R. A. 779, 23 Am. St. Rep. 119; Brewer v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 74, 22 S. W. 41, 40 Am. St. Rep. 760; People v. Warner, 104 Mich. 337, 62 N. W. 405. When name fictitious, Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. 347, 16 S. E. 945, 35 Am. St. Rep. 216.

16 Henderson v. State, 14 Tex. 503; Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54, 6 N. E. 914, 7 N. E. 763, 57 Am. Rep. 77; Brewer v. State, 32 Tex. (Cr. R. 74, 22 S. W. 41, 40 Am. St. Rep. 760. Name of corporation no longer in existence, Buckland v. Com., 8 Leigh (Va.) 734; White V. Com., 4 Bin. (Pa.) 418.

17 Brewer v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 74, 22 S. W. 41, 40 Am. St. Rep. 760; People v. Krummer, 4 Parker, Cr. R. (N. Y.) 217; King v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 108, 57 S. W. 840, 96 Am. St. Rep. 792.

18 "If a person give a note entirely as his own, his subscribing it by a fictitious name will not make it a forgery, the credit thus being given to himself without any regard to the name or without any relation to a third person." Cockburn, C. J., in Reg. v. Martin, 14 Cox, Cr. Cas. 375, 5 Q. B. Div. 34.

the credit is given, not in reliance on the accused himself, but on the genuineness of the instrument, it is forgery.19 Signing one's own name as agent of another without authority, or signing another's name with an addition showing that it is signed by accused as agent,20 is not forgery, since the making or alteration must be false, and this is a mere assumption of authority. Hence it has been held not forgery for a person falsely to sign his own name and the name of another as a pretended partnership.21 Signing by making an impression with a stamp is such a signature as may constitute the crime.22 There must be some making or alteration of an instrument, and therefore it would not be forgery to make use of an instrument, such as an order for the payment of money, or a check, which is genuine, but by mistake is drawn for more money than is intended.23 So, also, it has been held not to be forgery to fraudulently write out

19 State v. Wheeler, 20 Or. 192, 25 Pac. 394, 10 L. R. A. 779, 23 Am. St. Rep. 119.

20 Reg. v. White, 2 Cox, Cr. Cas. 210; State v. Willson, 28 Minn. 52, 9 N. W. 28; In re Tully (C. C.) 20 Fed. S12; State v. Taylor, 46 La. Ann. 1332, 16 South. 190, 25 L. R. A. 591, 49 Am. St. Rep. 351. Where a bounty inspector made a bounty certificate, certifying that a third person had exhibited skins to him and filed the necessary affidavits, both of which facts were false and known to be false by the inspector, he was held guilty of forgery under a statute providing that any person who shall falsely make a certificate relating to bounties on wild animals shall be guilty of forgery. In re Terrett, 34 Mont. 325, 86 Pac. 266 (1906). Other states contra, construing the "falsely making" in similar statutes as having reference, not to the contents of the instrument, but as to its genuineness, the falsity consisting in its purporting to be the instrument of some person other than the one actually signing. Com. v. Foster, 114 Mass. 319, 19 Am. Rep. 353 (1873) State v. Young, 46 N. H. 266, 88 Am. Dec. 212 (1865); U. S. v. Moore (D. C.) 60 Fed. 738 (1894).

211 Hawk. P. C. c. 70, § 5; COM. v. BALDWIN, 11 Gray (Mass.) 197, 71 Am. Dec. 703, Mikell Illus. Cas. Criminal Law, 203.

22 In re Benson (C. C.) 34 Fed. 649.

23 Bell v. State, 21 Tex. App. 270, 17 S. W. 155.

24

a note or deed for an illiterate person for more than he intends, and then, by falsely reading it over to him, obtain his signature. On the same principle it is not forgery to alter a receipt which has been read to the prosecutor and procure his signature thereto in ignorance of the alteration.25 A person may be authorized to sign another's name, or fill in blanks over his signature, and yet may do so fraudulently, so as to be guilty of forgery; as, for instance, where a person authorized to sign another's name to certificates signs a false certificate,2° or where a person who is authorized to fill up checks signed in blank, and use them in his principal's business for a particular purpose, fills them up for an arbitrary amount, and appropriates it." In the latter case it would not be forgery if the agent had a general authority to fill up the checks, but would be embezzlement.28 The fact that the forged instrument does not resemble the genuine, provided the instrument can reasonably deceive, is immaterial except so far as the fact of dissimilarity may bear on the question of intent.29 A person who directs the forging of an instrument by an innocent agent, and utters

24 Wells v. State, 89 Ga. 788, 15 S. E. 679; Hill v. State, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 76, 24 Am. Dec. 441; COM. v. SANKEY, 22 Pa. 390, 60 Am. Dec. 91, Mikell Illus. Cas. Criminal Law, 206. But see State v. Shurtliff, 18 Me. 368; Clay v. Schwab, 1 Mich. N. P. 168.

25 Reg. v. Chadwick, 2 Moody & R. 545.

26 Moore v. Com., 92 Ky. 630, 18 S. W. 833.

27 Reg. v. Hart, 7 Car. & P. 652; Hooper v. State, 30 Tex. App. 412, 17 S. W. 1066, 28 Am. St. Rep. 926; People v. Dickie, 62 Hun, 400, 17 N. Y. Supp. 51. And see State v. Maxwell, 47 Iowa, 454; Biles v. Com., 32 Pa. 529, 75 Am. Dec. 568; State v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 552; State v. Flanders, 38 N. H. 324.

28 Reg. v. Richardson, 2 Fost. & F. 343; People v. Reinitz (Gen. Sess.) 6 N. Y. Supp. 672.

29 Com. v. Stephenson, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 481, 59 Am. Dec. 154; State v. Gryder, 44 La. Ann. 962, 11 South. 573, 32 Am. St. Rep. 358; Hess v. State, 5 Ohio, 5, 22 Am. Dec. 767.

30

the same, and receives the proceeds, is a principal forger.3° Thus forgery may be committed by procuring an instrument to be signed by another with that other's own name, if it is done for the purpose of using it as the signature of another person of the same name as the signer.31

Character of Instrument

According to the weight of authority the subject of a forgery must be some writing or document, but beyond this the character of the instrument is not material, provided that, if genuine, it might be of apparent legal efficacy and might prejudice another's rights. The subject of forgery may be a deed 32 or a mortgage, a check or note or bill of exchange, an order for goods or money, a duebill, a

34

33

30 Territory v. Barth, 2 Ariz. 319, 15 Pac. 673; Ala. 51, 9 South. 600; Hughes v. Com., 89 Ky. Com. v. Foster, 114 Mass. 311, 19 Am. Rep. 353; Mich. 252, 28 N. W. 818, 4 Am. St. Rep. 848; Ohio St. 510, 20 Am. Rep. 774.

N. W. 168.

35

36

Elmore v. State, 92 227, 12 S. W. 269; McGinn v. Tobey, 62 Gregory v. State, 26

31 Reg. v. Mitchell, 1 Denison Cr. Cas. 282, note. 32 Allgood v. State, 87 Ga. 668, 13 S. E. 569. 33 People v. Sharp, 53 Mich. 523, 19 34 Rex v. Birkett, Russ. & R. 86; Com. v. Stephenson, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 481, 59 Am. Dec. 154; Butler v. Com., 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 237, 14 Am. Dec. 679; State v. Coyle, 41 Wis. 267; Com. v. Ward, 2 Mass. 397.

85 Stewart v. State, 113 Ind. 505, 16 N. E. 186; Hendricks v. State, 26 Tex. App. 176, 9 S. W. 555, 557, 8 Am. St. Rep. 463; Rollins v. State, 22 Tex. App. 548, 3 S. W. 759, 58 Am. St. Rep. 659; Crawford v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 19 S. W. 766; Reddick v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 587, 21 S. W. 684; State v. Jefferson, 39 La. Ann. 331, 1 South. 669; State v. Stephen, 45 La. Ann. 702, 12 South. 883; Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 South. 894; Hale v. State, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 167, 78 Am. Dec. 488; Baysinger v. State, 77 Ala. 63, 54 Am. Rep. 46. The fact that order is signed at beginning is immaterial. Crawford v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 51, 19 S. W. 766. Failure to name drawee and payee immaterial. State v. Bauman, 52 Iowa,

68, 2 N. W. 956.

36 Nelson v. State, 82 Ala. 44, 2 South. 463.