¶1 The defendant was convicted on the second count in the indictment. He then made a motion in arrest of judgment; and the motion was sustained. The Solicitor for the State appealed. Forgery is a false making — making mato animo — of a written instrument, for the purpose of fraud and deceit — the word “ making” being considered as including every alteration of, or addition'to, a true instrument. 2 Russell on Crimes, 317. 2 East. P. C. 852, 965. 2 Leach, 785. The charge against the defendant in the second count, is, for falsely, wittingly and corruptly rubbing put, erasing and obliterating an acquittance for eleven dollars, which acquittance had been endorsed on the bond mentioned in the indictment, with an intent to defraud one Caleb Line-berger, the obligor, against the form óf the statute, <fcc. We have no statute, making the act of erasing, rubbing-out, and obliterating an acquittance, forgery. And the intentional destruction of an acquittance^in whatever way, cannot be either a making a written instrument, or the alteration of, or addition to, a truly written instrument, so as to bring the act within the definition of forgery. The judgment was therefore correct, and it must be affirmed.
¶2 Per Curiam. Ordered to be certified accordingly.