FORGERY. The falsely making or ma terially altering, with intent to defraud, any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or the foundation of a legal liability. 2 Bish. 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 for gery consists in making an instrument ap pear to be that which it is not; L. R. 1 C. C. R. 200.
Bishop, 2 Cr. Law § 523, n., has collected nine deft mitions of forgery, and remarks that the books abound in definitions. Coke says the term is "taken metaphorically from the smith, who beateth upon his anvil and forgeth what fashion and shape he will." Co. 3d Inst. 169.
A person may commit forgery' by fraudu lently making, over his own signature, a paper writing which, if genuine, would pos sess legal efficacy, and might operate to the prejudice of another's rights; Luttrell v. State, 85 Tenn. 232, 1 S. W. 886, 4 Am. St. Rep. 760. 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,
15 Hun but a fraudulent insertion, teration, or erasure, even of a letter, in any material part of the instrument, whereby a new operation is 'given to it, will amount to a forgery; State v. Floyd, 5 Strobh. (S. C.) 58, 53 Am. Dec. 689; L. R. 1 C. C. R. 200; and this, although it be afterwards ex ecuted by a person ignorant of the deceit ; 2 East, Pl. Cr. 855.
The fraudulent application of a true sig nature to a false instrument for which it was not intended, or vice versa, will also be a forgery ; Powell v. Coro., 11 Gratt. (Va.) 822; Pennsylvania v. Misner, Add. (Pa.) 44. For example, it is forgery in an indi vidual 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; P. Moore 759; Co. 3d Inst. 170; 1 Hawk. Pl. Cr. c. 70, s. 2; 2 Russ. Cr. 318; Bacon, Abr. Forgery (A) ; so held of one who was em ployed to draw a will and fraudulently omit ted a legacy; 1 Hawk. Pl. Cr. c. 70, § 6; 3 Chitty, Cr. L. 1038. One was held not to be guilty of forgery, who in writing a promis sory note for an illiterate person to execute, inserts therein an amount larger than direct ed ; Wells v. State, 89 Ga. 788, 15 S. E. 679.
It has been intimated by Lord Ellen borough 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 for ' gery ; 5 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 de scription and addition where a false name is not assumed and there is no person answer ing the description, is not a forgery; 1 Russ. & R. 405.