§ 524. Legal efficacy of document.-To constitute forgery the document must be of legal efficacy, either real or apparent. Hence it is not forgery to make or alter a will which is not subscribed by the required number of witnesses;43 nor is it forgery to add names of witnesses to a document which the law does not require to be witnessed; nor to imitate a bank note which is declared void by statute.45

44

Some courts hold that a letter of recommendation is capable of being forged. 46 Other courts, however, hold the contrary.47

A note barred by the statute of limitations is capable of being forged since the statute to be effectual must be pleaded.48 And for a similar reason a note purporting to be signed by a minor is capable of being forged.

Where an instrument is prohibited by statute under a penalty, but which is not rendered void, it is capable of being forged.49 But a city warrant which is void,50 or an invalid contract owing to want of consideration,51 or a married woman's deed which is void for want of acknowledgment,52 or an affidavit not required by law,53 is not capable of being forged.

43 Rex v. Wall, 2 East P. C. 953; State v. Smith, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 150. See also, State v. Cordray, 200 Mo. 29, 98 S. W. 1, 9 Ann. Cas. 1110; Pelton v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 412, 132 S. W. 480, Ann. Cas. 1912 C, 86.

44 State v. Gherkin, 29 N. Car. 206.

45 Cunningham v. People, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 455 (bond not executed according to the provisions of the statute). See also, 2 Bish. New Crim. L. (8th ed.), § 538.

46 Reg. v. Sharman, Dears. Cr. C. 285; Commonwealth v. Coe, 115 Mass. 481.

47 Waterman v. People, 67 Ill. 91. 48 State v. Dunn, 23 Ore. 562, 32 Pac. 621, 37 Am. St. 704.

49 Nelson v. State, 82 Ala. 44, 2 So. 463. See also, Butler v. Commonwealth, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 237, 14 Am. Dec. 679; Thompson v. State, 9 Ohio St. 354. But see, Gutchins v. People, 21 Ill. 642.

50 Raymond v. People, 2 Colo. App. 329, 30 Pac. 504.

51 People v. Shall, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 778.

52 Roode v. State, 5 Nebr. 174, 25 Am. Rep. 475.

53 United States v. Barhart, 33 Fed. 459, 13 Sawy. (U. S.) 126.

Where a person fraudulently makes or alters a document, which on its face is apparently without legal efficacy, but which in fact, if genuine, would have legal efficacy, he is guilty of forgery.54 Where a document is valid on its face, but invalid owing to some extrinsic fact, it is capable of being forged.55 For example an insurance premium note which is to become valid when the policy is issued is capable of being forged although the policy is not issued.56 The same principle is applicable to a usurious note or bill of exchange.57 Mere misspelling of the signature attached to a note and intended to be regarded as that of another person does not prevent the offense from being forgery.58

§ 525. The document may be printed or engraved. It is not essential that the document be written. It may be printed or engraved. Thus, a railway ticket can be the subject of forgery.59 In the case cited, the defendant was convicted of forgery and the proof showed that he fraudulently procured innocent engravers and printers, in his absence, to engrave and print facsimiles of the tickets used on a railroad and disposed of the same. "The definition of forgery at common law is quite sufficient to embrace the present case. *** It is then objected that the crime of forgery can not be committed by counterfeiting an instrument wholly printed or engraved, and on which there is no written signature personally made by those to be bound. *** In the opinion of the court, such an instrument may be the subject

54 Rembert v. State, 53 Ala. 467, 25 Am. Rep. 639; State v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 98; Commonwealth Ray, 3 Gray (Mass.) 441.

V.

55 State v. Johnson, 26 Iowa 407, 96 Am. Dec. 158; State v. Hilton, 35 Kans. 338, 11 Pac. 164.

56 State v. McMackin, 70 Iowa 281, 30 N. W. 635.

57 People v. Wheeler, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 484.

58 State v. Chance, 82 Kans. 388, 108 Pac. 789, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1003, 20 Ann. Cas. 164.

59 Commonwealth v. Ray, 3 Gray (Mass.) 441. See also, Baysinger v. State, 77 Ala. 63, 54 Am. Rep. 46n. But see, under Texas Statute, Heath v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 49, 89 S. W. 1063, 122 Am. St. 783.

of forgery, when the entire contract, including the signature of the party, has been printed or engraved." Forgery may be committed with a typewriting machine.60

§ 526. Signing own name with intent to cheat.-A person can commit forgery by signing his own name so as to make the document purport to be that of another. "If the note is prepared for the purpose of being fraudulently used as the note of another person, it is falsely made. The question of forgery does not depend upon the presence upon the note itself of the indicia of falsity. If extrinsic circumstances are such as to facilitate the accomplishment of the cheat without the aid of any device in the note itself, the preparation of a note with intent to take advantage of those circumstances and use it falsely is 'making a false instrument.' ”1

§ 527. Alterations and erasures.—An erasure can constitute forgery as well as an interlineation. In either case, however, it must be material. It is forgery to erase a condition in a negotiable promissory note so as to render it nonnegotiable. The maker of a note, in doing this to his own note after it is delivered, commits forgery,63 It is not forgery to add to a document words already implied by law.64 Thus, where a note is payable "with interest" it is not forgery to add words stating the legal rate, because they do not prejudice the maker's rights. On the other hand, changing the middle initial of a person's name has been held a material change, and therefore forgery.

60 State v. Bradley, 116 Tenn. 711, 94 S. W. 605, 115 Am. St. 836, 8 Ann. Cas. 86.

61 Commonwealth v. Foster, 114 Mass. 311, 19 Am. Rep. 353. See also, State v. Farrell, 82 Iowa 553, 48 N. W. 940; People v. Rushing, 130 Cal. 449, 62 Pac. 742, 80 Am. St. 141; Barfield v. State, 29 Ga. 127, 74 Am. Dec. 49.

65

62 State v. Stratton, 27 Iowa 420, 1 Am. Rep. 282.

63 State v. Young, 46 N. H. 266, 88 Am. Dec. 212; Commonwealth v. Mycall, 2 Mass. 136.

64 Hunt v. Adams, 6 Mass. 519. 65 State v. Higgins, 60 Minn. 1, 61 N. W. 816, 27 L. R. A. 74, 51 Am. St. 490. For other changes held to be material, see Powell v.

§ 528. The intent.-To constitute forgery the act must be done with fraudulent intent.66 And in England it has been held that the intent must be to defraud an individual.67 In the case cited the defendant was convicted of forging and uttering a college diploma. The proof showed that he procured a diploma that had been granted by a college of surgeons to another person; that he substituted his own name, changed the date, etc., announced that he was a member of the college, applied for the position of vaccinator at the poorhouse and offered to produce the diploma to establish his qualifications for the position. The conviction was quashed, however, on the ground that no particular intent to defraud any individual was proved. But it has been held in England that where the intent is to defraud one party and the act defrauds another it constitutes forgery.68 In this country the courts hold that a general intent to defraud is sufficient."

69

§ 529. Doctrine of lucri causa not applicable.-As in the crime of larceny, the doctrine of lucri causa is not applicable to forgery. It is not essential that the accused entertains any intent to benefit by the act. act for the benefit of another.70 that any one benefit by the act.

Commonwealth, 11 Grat. (Va.) 822 (indorsement on a note); State v. Davis, 53 Iowa 252, 5 N. W. 149; State v. Robinson, 16 N. J. L. 507; People v. Lewinger, 252 Ill. 332, 96 N. E. 837, Ann. Cas. 1912 D, 239n.

66 Kotter v. People, 150 I11. 441, 37 N. E. 932; Pauli v. Commonwealth, 89 Pa. St. 432.

67 Reg. v. Hodgson, 7 Cox Cr. C. 122, Dears. & B. Cr. C. 3, 36

It is sufficient if he does the
Moreover, it is not essential
Thus, the fact that a forged

Eng. L. & Eq. 626, 25 L. J. M. C. 78, 4 W. R. 509, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 453. 68 Rex v. Sheppard, 2 East P. C. 967, Russ. & Ry. 169.

69 Commonwealth v. Ladd, 15 Mass. 526; Barnes V. Commonwealth, 101 Ky. 556, 41 S. W. 772; Arnold v. Cost, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 219, 22 Am. Dec. 302n; United States v. Long, 30 Fed. 678.

70 State v. White, 101 N. Car. 770, 7 S. E. 715, 9 Am. St. 53.

check is not accepted is immaterial." Or that the person whose name is signed to it has no account with the bank.72

§ 530. Injury from forgery.-To render a person guilty of forgery it is not essential that the party whose name is forged has suffered any actual damage.73

§ 531. Similitude of false instrument to genuine.-The mere fact that the forgery was so crude that it ought not to have deceived any one is no defense.74 Nor is the fact that the party whose name is forged has, in a few instances. paid checks where the accused had wrongfully signed the former's name.75