¶1 The bill of indictment is defective in this: there is no averment to connect Johnson with Howard so as to show that Johnson had authority, as the agent of Howard, to state the account of laborers and draw on him for the balance due. 'Without this averment, there is nothing from which the Court can see, that the false paper had a tendency to defraud Howard, or, how it could have been issued for such a purpose. State v. Greenlee, 1 Dev. 323, “The writing must have a tendency to injure ; that tendency must be apparent to the Court; either by the face of the writing or by an averment of facts extrinsic, showing the tendency to injure.” Rex v. Wilcox, Russell v. Ryan, Cr. cases, 50.
¶2 The indictment must aver, that the party purporting to have signed the false paper, had authority to sign and bind the party alleged to have been defrauded. In State v. Lamb, 65, N. C., 419, the intent charged was to defraud Hyatt, the party whose name was forged, so the intent was apparent without the averment of extrinsic facts.
¶3 This distinguishes the cases. Error. The judgment is arrested.
¶4 Peb CubxaM. Judgment arrested.