Coke to Wharton. But their doctrine is not sustained by the ancient English cases, and is opposed by the modern ones. Only three American decisions were cited on the argument and we take it for granted that there are no others on the point. Two of these (4 Mass., 45; 1 Yerger, 76) are wholly with the defendant, and the other (6 Shepley, 371) supports the argument of the Commonwealth's counsel. The weight of the judicial authorities is in favor of the opinion that this is no forgery.

We think that the arguments drawn from principle, and the reason of the thing, preponderate on the same side.

Judgment affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Lennon, 1804, 1 Browne's R., Appendix, XL.-“The Court of Quarter Sessions in Pennsylvania have jurisdiction over perjuries and forgeries."

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 1856, 1 Pittsburgh R., 279.—Motion for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Biles, 1859, 3 Phila. R., 350.—It is "forgery" for a clerk or bookkeeper to alter figures in "journal entries," so as to conceal his defalcation or abstraction of his employer's funds in his charge.

1. Biles v. Commonwealth, 1859, 8 Casey, 537.-A false and forged entry in the journal of a mercantile firm by a bookkeeper with intent to defraud is forgery at common law.

2. "The writing which is the subject of forgery, may be one by which a private fraud is attempted or done, or one tending to a public fraud or other public injury. It must be legally capable of effecting a fraud.”

3. The subjects of forgery considered and enumerated.

1. Commonwealth v. Work, 1873, 3 Pittsburgh R., 493.-A juror "being sworn, said he had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but that such opinion would not affect his finding if sworn as a juror in the case, and that he could and would determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant under the evidence offered upon the trial and the law as explained by the court, entirely uninfluenced by any such previous formation or expression of opinion." Held, To be a qualified juror. See Phila. Legal Gazette, November 29th, 1872, Commonwealth v. Mara, and Commonwealth v. Probst.

2. The following instruction held to be law, on a motion for new trial: "If the jury find that the defendant, as a clerk for the county commissioners, was furnished by them (the commissioners) with county bonds signed by them in blank, with directions to negotiate these in the interests of the county and for the purpose defined in the act of Assembly authorizing their issue, and to this end, at the time and for the purpose of such negotiation, to fill up the bonds with dates and numbers, and to affix the county seal and append his signature in attestation as clerk, and the defendant thereupon, with intent to defraud the county, filled up the bonds with dates and numbers, and affixed the county seal and appended his signature thereto and sold the same, intending to, and, in fact, did appropriate the proceeds thereof to his own use, or to the use of himself and fellow confederates, and not to the use of the county, this would constitute forgery." See Greenleaf on Evidence, 3 vol., 109th section, 103; Wharton on Criminal Law, section 1433.

3. "When books and documents introduced in evidence at the trial are multifarious and voluminous, and of such character as to render it difficult for the jury to comprehend material facts without schedules containing abstracts thereof,

it is within the discretion of the judge to admit such schedule, verified by the persons by whom they were prepared, allowing the adverse party an opportunity to examine them before the case is submitted to the jury."

Commonwealth v. Brown, 1873, 10 Phila. R., 184.—A partner cannot be indicted for forgery of an instrument of writing with intent to defraud the copartnership. Commonwealth v. Trimmer, 1877, 4 Weekly Notes, 101.

McClure v. Commonwealth, 1878, 6 Weekly Notes, 313.-Act of 31 March, 1860, sec. 169 considered, also sec. 19.

Commonwealth v. Mulholland, 1878, 5 Weekly Notes, 208.-An indictment charged the altering of the stub of a check-book. Held, Not to be such an alteration of a writing, in the absence of facts showing fraudulent purpose, as would constitute an offence; it is like charging false pretence without stating in the indictment what the false pretences were.

Commonwealth v. Mulholland, 1878, 12 Phila. R., 608.-" An indictment charging a forgery must set forth or describe a writing which on its face appears to be of a character to work some effect on property, or to injure some one, and if it is not on its face of that character it must be shown to possess that character by the averment of extrinsic facts."

Pauli v. Commonwealth, 1879, 7 Weekly Notes, 396.-The interlining of a lease "to make it conform to what was in truth the understanding and agreement of the parties at the time it was executed; such alteration was not made fraudulently, or to the prejudice of the rights" of another, and is not forgery.

When the court represents testimony, in its charge to the jury, as more severe against the defendant than it was in fact, the Supreme Court will reverse.

1. Commonwealth v. Cullen, 1879, 13 Phila. R., 442.-" Order of admission of evidence in criminal cases, and in rebuttal.

2. "Section 171 of the Criminal Code of 1860 is not merely limited to forgery, etc., of court records, but also the records of any public office of the Commonwealth.

3. "Discussion of the section of the Criminal Code in reference to forgery." ED. NOTE. See the charge of Ludlow, P. J., in this case, p. 426, 12 Phila. Reports.

Commonwealth v. Luberg, 1880, 9 Weekly Notes, 4.-Fraudulent making of false entries in the books of a national bank with intent to defraud the bank is forgery at common law.

1. Shissler v. Vandyke, 1880, 8 Weekly Notes, 234.-Ratification of a fraud or forgery is contrary to public policy.

2. A transaction contrary to good faith and fair dealing affecting individual interest only may be ratified.

Commonwealth v. Luberg, 1880, 94 Penna. R., 86.-"Plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment charging him, as receiving teller of the First National Bank of Mahanoy City, with fraudulently making false entries in the books, reports and statements of said bank, with intent to injure and defraud the said bank."

The Supreme Court was "asked to reverse the judgment upon the ground that the offence charged, having been committed by an officer of a national bank, it is not the subject of indictment in a State court."

"Commonwealth ex rel. William Torrey, decided at the last term, was relied upon to sustain this position. Torrey was indicted as cashier of a national bank

with embezzling the funds of the bank, and he was discharged upon habeas corpus for the reason that the offence was not indictable at common law, and our statutes defining and punishing the offence do not apply to national banks."

Held, "Here the indictment charges an offence which was a crime at common law. In Commonwealth v. Beamish, 31 P. F. Smith, 339, it was decided that the fraudulent alteration of a book, known as a tax duplicate, was forgery at common law. It is plain under this authority the plaintiff in error could have been indicted for forgery. The indictment here is laid under the statute, and does not charge the offence of forgery in the technical manner required by the strict rules of the common law, but, as in Commonwealth v. Beamish, is good under our Criminal Procedure Act. That the act of Assembly does not call it forgery makes no difference. It is the same offence."

Commonwealth v. Duffy, 1881, 38 vol. Legal Intel., 1881, p. 285.-"By the Criminal Procedure Act of 1860 the limitation of prosecutions for forgery when a misdemeanor was limited to two years; by the Act of 1877 the limitation was extended to five years.

"

Held, That this Act of 1877, extending the time, applied to cases in which the two years had not run at the time of its passage, and that it was not, therefore, an ex post facto law."

1. Commonwealth v. Phipps, 1883, 40 vol. Legal Intel., 1883, p. 180.-" An indictment charging the fraudulent making and signing of a receipt for a warrant, which was in words and figures as follows: 'Guardians of the Poor, 3, 27, 1882, $380, No. 969, item, W. S. Murphy. Received above warrant. W. S. Murphy,' is a good indictment under the 169th section of the Act of March 31, 1860, Purdon, 364, p. 253, which provides that if any person shall fraudulently make, sign, alter, utter or publish, or be concerned in the fraudulent making, signing, altering, uttering or publishing, any written instrument, other than notes, bills, checks or drafts, already mentioned, to the prejudice of another's rights, with intent to defraud any person or body corporate, or shall fraudulently cause or procure the same to be done, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.'

2. Commonwealth v. Mulholland, 12 Phila. R., 608, distinguished." Commonwealth v. Shissler, 4 Leg. Gaz., 65.

XVII. FORGING, AND FRAUDULENT USE, OF A FORGED STATE OR OTHER PUBLIC SEAL.

Act 31 March, 1860, Sec. 170, P. L., 423.-If any person shall, falsely and fraudulently, forge or counterfeit, or, falsely and fraudulently, be concerned in the forging and counterfeiting the great or less seal of the Commonwealth, the public and common seal of any court, office, county or corporation, or any other seal authorized by law, or shall falsely and fraudulently utter and publish any instrument or writing whatever impressed with such forged and counterfeit seal, knowing the same to be forged and counterfeit, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand dol

lars, and to undergo an imprisonment, by separate or solitary confinement at labor, not exceeding seven years.

XVIII. FORGING, EMBEZZLING OR CORRUPTING RECORDS.

Act 31 March, 1860, Sec. 171, P. L., 424.-If any person shall forge, deface, embezzle, alter, corrupt, withdraw, falsify, or unlawfully avoid any record, charter, gift, grant, conveyance or contract, or shall knowingly, fraudulently or unlawfully, spare, take off, discharge or conceal any fine, forfeited recognizance or other forfeiture, or shall forge, deface or falsify any registry, acknowledgment or certificate, or shall alter, deface or falsify any minute, document, book or any proceeding whatever of or belonging to any public office within this Commonwealth, or if any person shall cause or procure any of the offences aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywise concerned therein, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and to undergo an imprisonment, by separate or solitary confinement at labor, not exceeding seven years; and if a public officer, he shall be removed from said office, and the same be declared vacant by the court passing sentence upon him.

XIX. COUNTERFEITING AND FORGING PUBLIC BRANDS, AND ERASING AND FORGING INSPECTORS' MARKS, ETC.

Act 31 March, 1866, Sec. 172, P. L., 424.-If any person shall counterfeit or fraudulently impress the brand, mark or any number or mark of any public inspector, or mark or number in imitation thereof, upon any article subject to inspection, or upon any cask or vessel containing such article, or shall counterfeit the stamp of any such inspector upon any plug, or shall fraudulently stamp any plug put into any cask, or shall fraudulently alter, deface, conceal or erase any inspection mark duly made; or if any person shall counterfeit or fraudulently impress upon any article liable to inspection, or upon any cask or vessel containing such article, the brand, mark or other mark of any miller, manufacturer, packer or other person, or shall fraudulently alter, deface or erase any such mark, or shall fraudulently impress the brand, mark or other mark of any person upon such article or vessel, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be sen

tenced to pay a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, or either, at the discretion of the court.

XX. FORGING AND COUNTERFEITING TRADE-MARKS, LABELS, ETC., WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE OR DEFRAUD.

Act 31 March, 1860, Sec. 173, P. L., 424.-If any person shall knowingly and wilfully forge or counterfeit, or cause or procure to be forged or counterfeited, any representation, likeness, similitude, copy or imitation of the private stamps, wrappers or labels, usually affixed by any mechanic or manufacturer to and used by such mechanic or manufacturer on or in the sale of any goods, wares or merchandise, with intent to deceive or defraud the purchaser or manufacturer of any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding two years.

XXI. HAVING IN POSSESSION DIES, PLATES, ETC., WITH

INTENT TO USE THE SAME.

Act 31 March, 1860, Sec. 174, P. L., 424.—If any person shall have in his possession any die, plate, engraving or printed label, stamp or wrapper, or any representation, likeness, similitude, copy or imitation of the private stamp, wrapper or label usually affixed by any mechanic or manufacturer to and used by such manufacturer or mechanic on or in the sale of any goods, wares or merchandise, with intent to use or sell the said die, plate, engraving or printed stamp, label or wrapper, for the purpose of aiding or assisting, in any way whatever, in vending any goods, wares or merchandise, in imitation of, or intended to resemble and to be sold for the goods, wares or merchandise of such mechanic or manufacturer, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon being thereof convicted, be sentenced to pay a fine, not exceeding one hundred dollars, and to undergo an imprisonment, not exceeding one year.

XXII. VENDING GOODS FRAUDULENTLY MARKED. Act 31 March, 1860, Sec. 175, P. L., 426.-If any person shall vend any goods, wares or merchandise, having thereon any