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. Cri. 328; Brewer v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 74, 22 S. W. 41, 40 Am. St. Rep. 760; Lascelles v. Stale, 90 Ga. 347, 16 S. E. 945, 35 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, Pl. Cr. 963 ; U. S. v. Turner, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 132, 8 L. Ed. 633 ; (See State v. Bauman, 52 Ia. 68, 2 N. W. 956.) But the correctness of this decision has been doubted; Rose. Cr. Ey. 384. One who, with intent to forge the check of "R. & M.," signs the name "A. E. R. & Co." there to, believing it to be the true name of the firm, is not guilty of forgery; People v. Elli ott, 90 Cal. 586, 27 Pac. 433.
The offence may be complete without a Publication of the forged instrument ; 2 East, Pl. Cr. 855.
The presumption Is that a drawee bank knows the signature of its own customers; Neal v. Coburn, 92 Me. 139, 42 Atl. 348, 69 Am. St. Rep. 495 ; First Nat. Bank of Dan vers v. Bank, 151 Mass. 280, 24 N. E. 44, 21 Am. St. Rep. 450. But this presumption is conclusive only when the party receiving the money has in no way contributed to the suc cess of the fraud or mistake of fact under which the payment was made. In the ab sence of actual fault on the part of the drawee, his constructive fault in not know ing the signature of the drawer, and detect ing the forgery will not preclude his recov ery from one who took the check under cir cumstances of suspicion without proper pre caution, or whose conduct has been such as to mislead the drawee or to induce him to pay the check without the usual security against fraud ; id.; Ford v. Bank, 74 S. C. 180, 54 S. E. 204, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 63, 114 Am. St. Rep. 986, 7 Ann. Cas. 744.
Where the payee cut a note signed by three school. trustees from an order blank for school supplies and transferred such note to another instrument for the payment of money, held that the alteration being made with criminal intent, it was forgery ; State v. Mitton, 37 Mont. 366, 96 Pac. 926, 127 Am. St. Rep. 732.
With regard to the thing forged, it may be observed that it has been holden to be for gery at common law fraudulently to falsify or falsely make records and other matters of a public nature ; 1 Rolle, Abr. 65, 68 ; a parish regiiter ; 1 Hawk. Pl. Cr. c. 70 ; a let ter in the name of a magistrate, or of the governor of a gaol directing the discharge of a prisoner ; 6 C. & P. 129; Mood. 379; the making a false municipal certificate with in tent to defraud is forgery, notwithstanding the city has not power to issue such certifi cates; State v. Eades, 68 Mo. 150, 30 Am. Rep. 780 ; the alteration of a document to prevent the discovery of an embezzlement ; 11 Crim. L. Mag. 47.
With regard to private writings, forgery may be committed of any writing which, if genuine, would operate r the foundation of another man's liability or the evidence of his right ; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 103 ; Com. v. Ward, 2
Mass. 397; Butler v. Com., 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 237, 14 Am. Dec. 679 ; State v. Smith, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 150; as, a check ; Hendrick v. Cora., 5 Leigh (Va.) 707 ; an assignment of a legal claim ; an indorsement of a promissory note ; Powell v. Com., 11 Gratt. (Va.) 822 ; State v. Carragin, 210 Mo.. 351, 109 S. W. 553, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 561; writing the name of the payee falsely and fraudulently on the back of a treasury warrant payable to order ; U. S. v. Jolly, 37 Fed. 108; a receipt or acquittance; Com. v. Ladd, 15 Mass, 526 ; an acceptance of a bill of exchange, or an order for the de livery of goods; 8 C. & P. 629 ; Com. v. Ayer, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 150 ; Hendricks v. State, 26 Tex. App. 176, 9 S. W. 555, 557, 8 Am. St. Rep.
463 ; Reddick v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 587, 21 S. W. 684 ; or an order for money ; Gibson v. State, 79 Ga. 344, 5 S. E. 76 ; a deposition to be used in court; State v. Kimball, 50 Me. 409 ; a private act of parliament ; 4 How. St. Tr. 951; a copy of any instrument to be used in evidence in the place of -a real or sup posed original; State v. Smith, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 150 ; false entries in the books of a mercan tile house, but not necessarily so in every case; Biles v. Com., 32 Pa. 529, 75 Am. Dec. 568 ; State v. Young, 46 N. H. 266, 88 Am. Dec. 212 ; a letter of recommendation of a person as a man of property and pecuniary responsibility ; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 365 ; People v. Abeel, 182 N. Y. 415, 75 N. E. 307, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 730, 3 Ann. Cas. 287 ; a false testimo nial to character ; & M. 207 ; 1 Den. Cr. Cas. 492 ; Dearsl. 285 ; a railway pass ; 2 C. & K. 604 ; a railroad-ticket ; Com. v. Ray, 3 Gray (Mass.) 441; a certified bill of costs ; Luttrell v. State, 85 Tenn. 232, 1 S. W. 886, 4 Am. St. Rep. 760 ; or of a contract which, if genuine, would be void as against public policy ; People v. Munroe, 100 Cal. 664, 35 Pac. 326, 24 L. R. A. 33, 38 Am. St. Rep. 323. Forgery may be of a printed or en graved as well as of a written instrument ; Com. v. Ray, 3 Gray (Mass.) 441; Henshaw v. Foster, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 312; Benson v. Mc Mahon, 127 U. S. 457, 8 Sup. Ct. 1240, 32 L. Ed. 234 ; but falsely to subscribe a person's name to a recommendation of a medicine is not forgery ; Miller v.. Rittinger, 2 Pear. (Pa.) 351; nor to alter a lease by interlineations in order to conform it to the purpose of par ties ; Pauli v. Com., 89 Pa. 432 ; nor is the private memorandum-book of a public officer, not required to be kept by law, the subject of forgery ; Downing v. Brown, 3 Colo. 571; nor the changing the date of tax receipts which still show on their face that they were given for the taxes of the year previous ; Cox v. State, 66 Miss. 14, 5 South. 618; a forgery must be of some document or writing ; there fore, the printing an artist's name in the cor ner of a picture, in order falsely to pass it of as an original picture by that artist, is not a forgery ; 1 Dearsl. & B. 460 ; Clark, Cr. L. 295.