Forgery

The falsely making or materially altering, with Intent to defraud, any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability.

2 Blsh. Cr. Law § 523; Smith V. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 South. 894.

The fraudulent making and alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man’s right.

4 Bla. Com. 247.

The essence of forgery consists in making an Instrument appear to be that which it Is not; L. R. 1 C. C. R. 200. Bishop, 2 Cr. Law ( 523, n., has collected nine definitions of forgery, and remarks that the books abound in definitions. Coke says the term Is “taken metaphorically from the smith, who beateth upon bis anvil and forgeth what fashion and shape be will.” Co. 3d Inst. 169. A person may commit forgery by fraudulently making, over his own signature, a paper writing which, if genuine, would possess legal efficacy, and might operate to the prejudice of another’s rights; Luttrell v. State, 85 Tenn. 232, 1 S. W, 880, 4 Am. St Rep. 700. One may have authority to sign the name of another to an instrument for the payment of money in a stated amount, or for a legal purpose, and yet commit a forgery by signing for a larger amount, or for an illegal purpose with intent to defraud; Claiborne v. State, 51 Ark. 88, 9 S. W. 851. A clerk in the telegraph office who sent to a bookmaker a telegram offering to bet on a certain horse, which purported to be sent before the race, and to be signed by a person who had authorized him to telegraph bets in his name, but which was in fact sent after the clerk knew that the horse had won the race, was held guilty of forgery under a statute against procuring money by virtue of any forged or altered instrument. Lord Russell, C. J., and Vaughan Williams, J., doubted as to the statute, but not that it was forgery at common law; [1896] 1 Q. B. 309. The making of a whole written instrument in the name of another with a fraudulent intent is undoubtedly a sufficient making; although otherwise where one executes a promissory note as agent for a principal from whom he has no authority; Mann v. People, 16 Hun 165; but a fraudulent insertion, alteration, or erasure, even of a letter, in any to a forgery; State v. Floyd, 6 Strobh. (S. 0.) 68, 63 Am. Dec. 689; L. R. 1 C. C. R. 200; and this, although it be afterwards executed by a person Ignorant of the deceit; 2 East, PI. Cr. 855. The fraudulent application of a true signature to a false Instrument for which it was not Intended, or vice versa, will also be a forgery; Powell v. Com., 11 Gratt (Va.) 822; Pennsylvania v. Mlsner, Add. (Pa.) 44. For example, it is forgery in an individual who is requested to draw a will for a sick person in a particular way, instead of doing so, to Insert legacies of his own head, and then procure the signature of such sick person to the paper without, revealing to him the legacies thus fraudulently inserted; F. Moore 759; Co. 3d Inst 170; 1 Hawk. PI. Cr. c. 70, s. 2; 2 Russ. Cr. 318; Bacon, Abr. Forgery (A); so held of one who was employed to draw a will and fraudulently omitted a legacy; 1 Hawk. PI. Cr. c. 70, § 6; 3 Chltty, Cr. L. 1038. One was held not to be guilty of forgery, who in writing a promissory note for an illiterate person to execute, inserts therein an amount larger than directed; Wells V. State, 89 Ga. 788, 16 S. E. 679. It has been intimated by Lord Ellenborough that a party who makes a copy of a receipt and adds to such copy material words not in the original, and then offers it in evidence on the ground that the original has been lost, may be prosecuted for forgery; 6 Esp. 100. It Is a sufficient making where, in the writing, the party assumes the name and character of a person in existence; 2 Russ. Cri. 327. But the adoption of a false description and addition where a false name Is not assumed and there is no person answering the description, is not a forgery; 1 Russ. & R. 405. Making an' Instrument in a fictitious name, or the name of a non-existing person, is as much a forgery as making it in the name of an existing person; 2 Russ. Crl. 328; Brewer V. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 74, 22 S. W. 41, 40 Am. St. Rep. 760; Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. 347, 16 S. E. 945, 36 Am. St. Rep. 216; and although a man may make the Instrument in his own name, if he represent it as the Instrument of another of the same name, when in fact there is no such person. It will be a forgery In the name of a non-existing person; 2 Leach 775; 2 East, PI. Cr. 963;