« PreviousContinue »
making or materially altering or uttering,” with intent to defraud,3 a note or other instrument in writing," which, if genuine, might be
had no authority to take the indorsement. 2. United States v. Cameron, 3 Dak. The court said: “It is the essence of for- 132; State v. Phelps, 11 Vt. 116; s. C., 34 gery that one signs the name of another Am. Dec, 672. 10 pass it off as the signature of that Where Several Drafts are Uttered as One other. This cannot be when the party Individual Act, the forgery of each is a openly and on the face of the paper de- separate offence. Barton v. State, 23 clares that he signs it for another.'
In Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 77 Mass. 3. State v. Givens, 5 Ala. 747; Cohen (11 Gray) 187, the prisoner made and de- v. People, 7 Colo. 274; s. C., 2 Denv. L. J. livered a note signed “Schouler, Bald. 136; Jackson v. Weisiger, 2 B. Mon. win & Co.,” stating at the same time that (Ky.) 214; State v. Maas, 37 La. An. 29; he and Schouler composed the firm. Gratton Bank v. Flanders, 4 N. H. 239, There was no such partnership. It was 242; People v. Peabody, 25 Wend. (N. held not to be forgery. The court say: Y.) 472; Com. v. Sankey, 22 Pa. St. 390;
As a general rule, to constitute forgery s. C., 60 Am. Dec. 91; Hill v. State, i the writing must purport to be the writ. Yerg. (Tenn.) 76; S. C., 24 Am. Dec. 441; ing of another party than the person State v. Odel, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 552; State making it. The mere false statement or v. Floyd, 5 Strobh. (S. C.) L. 58; S. C., implication of a fact, not having reference 53 Am. Dec. 689; Reg. v. Beard, 8 Car. to the person by whom the instrument is & P. 143; Reg. v. Page, 8 Car. & P. 122; executed, will not constitute the crime.” Reg. v. Parish, 8 Car. & P. 94; Rex v. This case is referred to approvingly in Forbes, 7 Car. & P. 224; Reg. v. Wilson, Commonwealth v. Foster, 114 Mass. 311; 2 Car. & K. 527; 1 Den. C. C. 284; Blake and the court there say: “The distinction V. Allen, Sir F. Moore, 619; Rex v. Whiis plainly drawn between one who as- ley, Russ & Ry. 90. sumes to bind another, either jointly with 4. Forgery of Artist's Signature to Pichimself or by procuration, however ture.-If a person knowingly sells, as an groundless and false may be the pretence original, a copy of a picture, with the of authority so to do, and one who signs painter's name imitated upon it, and by in such a manner that the instrument means of the imitaied name knowingly may purport to be the actual signature of and fraudulently induces another to buy another party having the same name. and pay for the picture as a genuine To the same effect is Mann v. People, 15 work of the artist, he may be indicted Hun (N. Y.), 155; State v. Wilson, 28 for a cheat at common law, by means of Minn. 52; s. C., 24 Alb. L. J. 57.
a false token; but he cannot be indicted 1. United States v. Cameron, 3 Dak. for forging, or uttering the forged name 132; State v. Wooderd, 20 Iowa, 541; of the painter, for the crime of forgery State v. Maas, 37 La. An. 292; State must be committed with some document v. Robinson, 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 507; in writing, and does not extend to the Mann v. People, 15 Hun (N. Y.), 155; fraudulent imitation of a name put on a People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 198; picture merely as a mark to identify it as S.C., 19 Am. Dec. 477; State v. Greenlee, a painter's work. Reg. v. Closs, Dears. i Dev. (N. C.) L. 523; State v. Gherkin, 7 & B. C. C. 460; s. C., 7 Cox C. C. 494; Ired. (N. C.) L. 206; State v. Thornburg, 27 L. J. M. C. 54: 3 Jur. N. S. 1309. 6 Ired. (N. C.) L. 79; s. C., 44 Am. Dec. 5. Sufficiency to Effect Purpose Intended. 67; Com. v. Sankey, 22 Pa. Si. 390; S.C., -It is perfectly immaterial whether the 60 Am. Dec. 91; State v. Rowe, 8 Rich. counterfeited instrument be such as, if (S. C.) L. 20; State v. Floyd, 5 Strob. real, would be effectual to the purpose it (S. C.) L. 58; s. C., 53 Am. Dec. 689; intends. If there is only a resemblance State v. Waters, 2 Tread. (S. C.) 669; sufficient to impose upon those to whom Hill v. State, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 76; s. C., 24 it is uttered or to the public generally, it Am. Dec. 441; State v. Phelps, 11 Vt. is sufficient. Whether the fraud be effected 116; S. C., 34 Am. Dec. 673; State v. Mc- on the party to whom an instrument is Leran, i Aik. (V1.) 311; Reg. v. Blenkin- addressed, or whose writing is countersop, 1 Den. C. C.276; Car. & K. 531: Rex feited, or upon some third person who ?'. Kinder, 2 East P. C. 855; Rex v. takes it upon the credit it assumes, is Treble, 2 Leach (4th ed.), 1040; s. C., 2 perfectiy immaterial. 3 Chit. Cr. L. 462. Taunt. 328; Russ. & Ry. 164; Rex v. But notwithstanding the validity of the Dawson, I Str. 19; s. c., 2 East P. C. instrument, if real, is immaterial, it must 978; Rex v. Post, Russ. & Ry. 101. not appear on its face, so that no one of of legal efficacy,' or might be the foundation of a legal liability.” common understanding would give it son, 19 Iowa, 299; State v. Kimball, 50 credit. Thus, it will not be a forgery to Me. 409; Ames's Case, 2 Me. (2 Greenl.) fabricate a will of land, as attested by 365; Com. v. Chandler, Thach, Cr. Cas. only two witnesses.
2 East P. C. 953. (Mass.) 187; Com. v. Ayer, 57 Mass. (3 1. People v. Galloway, 17 Wend. (N. Cush.) 150; People v. Krummer, 4 Park. Y.) 510, 542; People 2. Fiich, 1 Wend. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 217; Barnum v. State, 15 (N. Y.) 198; De Bow v. People, i Den. Ohio, 717; s. C., 45 Am. Dec. 601; Com. (N. Y.) 9: Com. v. Linton, 2 Va. Cas. v. Searle, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 332; s. C., 4 Am. 476; Rex v. McIntosh, 2 East P. C. 942; Dec. 446; State v. Holly, 2 Bay (S. C.) L. s. C. sub nom. Rex v. Teague, Russ. & 252; State v. Smith, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 151. Ry: 33, 2 East P. C. 969; Rex v. Mackin- The Making or Alteration of an Instrutosh, 2 Leach (4th ed.), 883; Reg. V. ment, with a fraudulent intent, and withPike, 2 Moo. 70; Rex v. Deakins, i Sid. out authority, completes the offence be142.
fore any injury is sustained by any 2. Van Horne v. State, 5 Pike (Ark.), person. Nor is it necessary the whole 349; Ames's Case, 2 Me. (2 Greenl.) 365; instrument should be made fictitious; Com. '. Chandler, Thaich. Cr. Cas. making an alteration or erasure in any (Mass.) 187; Com. 2. Ayer, 57 Mass. (3 material part of a true instrument, whereCush.) 150; Com. v. Mycall, 2 Mass. 136; by another may be defrauded, is a forgery. State v. Van Hart, 17 N. J. L. (3 Harr.) A false signature to a true instrument, or 327; Harris v. People, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) a real signature to a false one, are 664; People v. Harrison, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) forgeries. The alteration of the date of 560; People v. Shall, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 778; a bill of exchange after acceptance, by People v. Cady, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 490; which payment may be accelerated, is a Barnum v. State, 15 Ohio, 717; s. C., 45 forgery. 4. T. R. 320. But the instruAm. Dec. 601; State v. Jones,'1 Bay (S. ment must be false in itself; for if a man C.), 207; State v. Gurridge, i Bay (S. pass for another who is the maker or inC.), 255; State v. Smith, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) dorser of a true instrument, it is not a 150; Foulkes v. Com., 2 Rob. (Va.) 836; forgery, although he may be punished Rex 7. Harris, 6 Car. & P. 129; Reg. v. under the statute of false pretences. 3 Boult, 2 Car. & K. 604; Reg. 1. Toshack, Chitty Cr. L. 465. The instrument must i Den. C. C. 492; Rex v. Wall, 2 East bear a resemblance to that which it is inP. C. 953; Rex v. Jones, 2 Eas: P. C. tended to represent; but it is not necessary 991: Upfold v. Leit, 5 Esp. 100; Rex v. that it should be perfect, or even a corGade, 2 Leach (4th ed.), 732; s. C., 2 East rect copy. It is sufficient if it bears such P. C. 874; Rex v. Ward, 2 Ld. Raym. a resemblance as to impose upon man1461; S. C.. 2 Str. 747; Rex v. O'Brian, 7 kind, although an individual skilled in Mod. 378; Reg. v. King, 7 Mod. 150; Rex that kind of writing would detect its falv. Harris, i Moo. C. C. 393; Rex v. Burke, lacy. 2 East P. C. 950; 1 Leach, 229. Russ. & Ry. 496; Rex v. Knight, i Salk, Intent to Damage or Defraud-Colorado 375; S. C., i Ld. Raym. 530; i Bish. Cr. Doctrine. — The statute makes the offence L. $ 572; 1 Horton Cr. L. $ 563; 2 Russ. of forgery to consist in forging or on Cr. (5th Eng. ed.) 618.
counterfeiting the handwriting of another, Attempt to Imitate-New York Doctrine. with intent to damage or defraud such - Forgery is the attempted imitation of person. Cohen v. People, 7 Colo. 274; another's personal act, and by means of s. C., 2 Denv. L. J: 156. such imitation to cheat and defraud, and Must be Without Legal Authority-Texas not the doing of something in the name Doctrine.—To sustain an indiciment for of another, which does not profess to be forgery, within the meaning of Paschal the other's personal act, but that of the Dig. 1093, the instrument charged to be doer thereof; who claims and insists by forged must be alleged and proved to and in the act itself, that he is authorized have been made without legal authority. to obligate the individual whom he is A charge to the jury that the mere makassuming to obligate precisely as he ing of the forged instrument is sufficient, undertakes to do. Mann v. People, 15 is erroreous; the gist of the offence is Hun (N. Y.), 155.
that it was made without lawful authority. Forgery is the signing by One, Without Shanks 2. State, 25 Tex. 326. Authority, and falsely and with intent to Purporting to Be the Act of Another.defraud, the name of another to an in- Forgery is the false and fraudulent mak. strument which, if genuine, might appa- ing, or uitering, or alteration of a written rently be of legal efficacy or the founda- instrument, purporting to be the act of tion of a legal liability. State v. Thomp- some other person, which it is not. That any person should be actually injured by the making of any2 instrument with intent to defraud, without any uttering, amounts United States v. Cameron, 3 Dak. 132; with a design to defraud;" by Grose, J., State v. Phelps, 11 Vt. 116; s. C.,34 Am. “the false making of a note or other Dec. 672.
instrument with intent to defraud;" by Forgery of Order for Goods.-It is not Mr. East, “the false making of any wriinecessary, to constitute a forgery of an ten instrument for the purpose of fraud order for the delivery of goods, within and deceit” (2 East P. C. 852, 853); by the first section of the seventh division Mr. Chitiy, “the false making or alteraof the penal code of Georgia, that the tion of such writings as either at common person whose name is forged have goods law or by statute are subject of forgery, in the hands of the drawee. Hoskins v. with intent to defraud another. 3 Chit. State, ii Ga. 92.
Cr. L. 1022. This writer notices a disH., without authority, drew an order tinction between forgery and fraud: that upon A. for goods to a certain amount, the latter must actually take effect, while and signed K.'s name to it with the the former is complete, though no one is fraudulent purpose of obtaining goods on actually injured if the tendency and intent K.'s credit. Helit, that no acceptance of to defraud be manifest. As to what false the order was necessary to constitute making is necessary to constitute the forgery. Hale v. State, i Coldw. (Tenn.) offence, it has been held that a party 167; s. C., 78 Am. Dec. 488.
may make a false deed in his own nameForgery of a Seal.—To constitute for- by antedating, for instance, so as to pregery of a seal, the instrument to which judice a prior grantee. So by indorsing the seal is appended must be regular in a bill of exchange in his own name, when form and apparently legal. Fadner v. he is not the real payee. East P. C. 855; People, 33 Hun (N. Y.), 240.
4 T. R. 28, “On this principle, we held A Species of Fraud. -Forgery at com- Peacock guilty of forgery for indorsing mon law was only a species of fraud, and the permit for the delivery of a quantity punishable as a misdemeanor. It was of coal with his own name, knowing that often intermingled with false personating, he was not the real consignee of the coal, to which it seems very closely allied. It though of the same name. People v. was at one time doubted whether forgery Peacock, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 72. So making could be of any other writings but those a fraudulent alteration or erasure in any of a public kind. In Ward's Case, 2 Ld. material part of a true instrument, or Raym. 1461, it was decided that forgery any alteration which gives it a new at common law might be committed of operation,-as by altering the date of a any writing whatever by which another bill of exchange after acceptance, where. might be defrauded; and this case has by the payment was accelerated." 4 T. been decided to be good law in this R. 320; 3 Chit. Cr. L. 1038; 2 East P. C. country.
855. In England, a great number of very 1. Williams v. State, 61 Ala. 33; penal statutes have been enacted by Rembert 2. State, 53 Ala. 467; s: C., 25 Parliament defining the crime and de- Am. Rep. 639; Jones v. State, 50 Ala. claring the punishment; and prosecutions 161; State . Wooderd, 20 Iowa, 541; in that country are always brought under Arnold v. Cosi, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 219; s. one of those statutes.. In New York there c., 22 Am. Dec. 302; Com. v. Ladd, 15 is a statute declaring what will be forgery, Mass. 526; State v. Jones, 9 N. J. L. (4 and also fixing the punishment. Rev. L. Halst.) 357; s. C. 17 Am. Dec. 453; vol. I, p. 404.
People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 198; s. In the case of People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. C., 19 Am. Dec. +77; State v. Washing(N. Y.) 198; s. C., 19 Am. Dec. 477, the ton, 1 Bay (S.C.), 120; s. c., I Am. Dec. court say that forgery has often been de. 601; Reg. v. Nash, 2 Den. C. C. 193; fined by learned jurists. By Mr. Justice Rex v. Ward, 2 East C. L. 851; s. C., 2 Blackstone, “Forgery is the fraudulent Ld. Raym. 1461; S. C., 2 Str. 747; King making or alteration of a writing, v. Crocker, 2 Leach, 987; Rex v. Goale, to the prejudice of another's right;" i Ld. Raym. 737. by Buller, J., “the making of a false If the person intended to be defrauded instrument with intent to deceive;" by could not have been imposed upon, the Baron Eyre, “a false signature with crime could nevertheless have been com. intent to deceive." Again, "the false plete. Williams v. State, 61 Ala. 33. making an instrument which purports on 2. State v. Givens, 5 Ala. 747; People v. the face of it to be good and valid for Peabody, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 472; Com. v. the purposes for which it was created, Chandler, Thach. Cr. Cas. (Mass.) 187;
to the crime of forgery. It is not necessary, to constitute the offence of forgery, that the person whose name is signed, and who purports to become liable under the writing, should be in existence at the time: it is sufficient where the name is a mere fictitious name ; 2 for the act may be equally an attempt to defraud.
II. ESSENTIALS OF THE CRIME.—The essential ingredients of forgery are: (1) The false making of some instrument in writing; (2) a fraudulent intent ;3 (3) the instrument must be apparently capable of effecting a fraud. Rex v. Sheppard, 1 Leach (4th ed.), 226; the statute declares that “ forgery is the Reg. v. Avery, 8 Car. & P. 596; Rex v. fraudulent making or alteration of any Sheppard, 2 East P. C. 967; s. C. sub nom. writing to the prejudice of another's Rex v. Wilks, 2 East P. C. 957; Rex name,” it is forgery to sign another's v. Lewis, 2 East P. C. 957; Fost. 116; name to an order for goods without author. Rex v. Parkes, 2 Leach (4th ed.). 775: 2 ity, and for the fraudulent purpose of obEast P. C. 953, 992; Rex v. Bolland. I taining goods on credit of the party whose Leach (4th ed.), 33; East P. C. 958; Rex name is forged. Acceptance of the forged v. Dunn, i Leach (4th ed.), 57; Rex v. order for the goods is unnecessary to make Taft, 1 Leach (7th ed.), 172; 2 East P. C. out the offence of forgery, the court say: 959; Reg. v. Hill, 2 Moo. 30; Rex v. “It is sufficient that the fraudulent intenPeacock, Russ. & Ry, 278; Rex V. tion existed, and that the forgery might Bontien, Russ. & Ry. 260; Rex have resulted if his object had been accomFrancis, Russ. & Ry. 209; Rex v. Whiley. plished.” Com. v. Ladd, 15 Mass. 526; Russ. & Ry. 90; Rex v. Marshall, Russ. State v. Humphreys, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) & Ry: 75.
442. 1. Com. v. Stephens, 1o Mass. 526. 2. Reg. v. Nash, 2 Den. C. C. 493; I
Necessity of Uttering.–The forged in- Whart. Cr. L. § 694. Compare 2 Bish. strument need not have passed, and goods Cr. L. (6th ed.) $ 599. or money obtained on it, to warrant a Signing Fictitious Name.-And it was conviction. Keeler v. State, 15 Tex. Ap. decided, upon solemn argument, that a forIII. In 2 Russell on Crimes (5th Eng. gery in the name of a person who has no ed.), 618, it is said: “It should be observed existence is a criminal, and as much a forthat the offence of forgery, though there gery within the statutes as if there was an be no publication or uttering of the forged intent to defraud the individual whose instrument. For the very making with a handwriting is counterfeited: Rex v. Bolfraudulent intention, and without lawful land, i Leach C. C. 83. The cases are exauthority, of any instrument which, at com- plicit and satisfactory upon this point. To mon law or by statute is the subject of put a false and fictitious name on a bill inforgery, is of itself a sufficient completion dorsed in blank, in order to circulate it with of the offence, before publication; and secrecy, is a forgery. 1 Leach C. C. 215. though the publication be the medium by To counterfeit a power of attorney purwhich the intention is usually made mani- porting to be by the administratrix and fest, yet it may be proved as plainly by daughter of a seaman, who had no child at other evidence. 2 East P. C. ch. 19, $4, his death, is a capital forgery. The forgery P. 855. Thus, the case where a note, of an instrument purporting to be the which the person was charged with having last will is taken as within the statutes, forged, was not published, but was found although the supposed testator is living. in his possession at the time he was ap- i Leach, 449. The fabrication of an order prehended, no objection was taken to the for payment of a sailor's prize-money is conviction, on the ground of the note not forgery, though it is invalid as wanting the having been published, there being in the requisites required by statute. 2 Leach C.C. case circumstances sufficient to warrant 883. Forgery of a protection in the name the jury in finding a fraudulent intention. of a member of Parliament, who was not Elliott's Case, i Leach C. C. 175; 2 East so, is indictable. Sid. 142. So it has P. C. ch. 19, $ 44, p. 951; 2 New Rep. 93, been adjudged a felony,within 5 Eliz. c. 14, note a: Crocker's Case, R. & R. 97; s. C., to counterfeit a conveyance with a wrong 2 Leach C C. 987.
name, although the conveyance wouid Acceptance of Forged Order for Goods. – have been void if it were genuine. 1 Keb. In Hale v. State, i Coldw. (Tenn.) 167; 803; 3 Keb. 51. S. C., 78 Am. Dec. 488, it is said that where 3. 2 Russ.on Cr. (5th Eng. ed.), 618.
1. False Making. It is of the essence of the crime of forgery that there should be a false making of an instrument apparently genuine ; 1 but the mere false making, without the intent to defraud some one, does not constitute the crime of forgery." The act done must be performed with the intent that it shall appear to be the act of another, or that it is other than that which it really is. Consequently, it is not forgery to sign one's own name, though with false pretence of authority to bind another person. Thus, it has been held that the mere indorsement of a bill with the party's own name, assuming to act for the owner of the bill, is not forgery; because in such case there is no false making. The falsehood precedes the making, and the indorsement itself is precisely what it purports to be. 4
And it is not forgery for a person to make a false charge in his own books 5 or fraudulently to alter the date of a satisfied order.6
It has been said that every instrument which purports to be what it is not, whether executed by a person who is not the person purporting to execute it, or bearing a date which is not the true date, makes the instrument a false one, and is therefore forgery." But this proposition is too broad a statement of the doctrine as recognized by the American courts; yet it is undoubtedly true that there may be a false making of an instrument in a person's own name, as where one signs his own name to an instrument with the intention to have it received as having been executed by another person of the same name.
1. Barnum v. State, 15 Ohio, 717, 721; fraudulent purpose of using it in evidence s. C., 45 Am. Dec. 601.
as a defence to a note made by him, was 2. Fox v. People, 95 Ill. 71.
held not to be forgery, because there was 3. Reg. v. White, i Den. C. C. 208. no false making. The court say: “ There
4. It is said by Lord Coke that, “To was no false making. The order purported forge is metaphorically taken from the to be drawn by the defendant, and it was so smith, who beateth upon his anvil and drawn; it purported be dated the 14th forgeth what fashion or shape he will." 3 of November, and was so dated.” Co. Inst. 168, 169.
7. Reg. v. Ritson, L. R. I C. C. 200; 5. State 7'. Young, 46 N. H. 266; s. C., S. C., 39 L. J. M. C. 10. 78 Am. Dec. 212.
8. See Mead 1'. Young, 4 T. R. 28. False Charge in Books.-In State v. This was a case where a person, who came Young, supru, it is said that the rule seems into possession of a bill payable to another to be that the “ writing or instrument person by the same name, fraudulently inwhich may be the subject of forgery must dorsed and passed it as his own. generally be, or purport to be, the act of Making a False Deed in Own Name. another, or it must at the time be the -In People v. Fitch, I Wend. (N. Y.) property of another, or it must be some 198; s. c., 19 Am. Dec. 477, it is said writing or instrument under which others that, “as to what false making is neces. have acquired some rights or have become sary to constitute the offence, it has been liable in a certain way, and where these held that a party may make a false deed rights or liabilities are sought to be af- in his own name, so as to prejudice the fected or changed by the alteration with prior grantee. So by indorsing a bill of out their consent.'
exchange in his own name, when he is not 6. People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 198; the real payee. Mead v. Young, 4 T. R. s. c., 19 Am. Dec. 477.
28; 2 East P. C. 855. On this principle, Changing Date of Order.-In the case we held Peacock guilty of forgery for inof People v. Fitch, supra, an alteration of dorsing the permit for the delivery of a the date of an order for the delivery of quantity of coal with his own name, knowgoods, made by the defendant with the ing that he was not the real consignee of