« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY.
Forgery is fraudulently making
a false suable document with
intent to defraud, & 653. Is a misdemeanor at common
law, and as such cognizable
in State courts, 8 653. II. MODES OF PERPETRATION.
All concerned in are principals,
2 655. Partner may be guilty of against
partner, 8 656. Party signing his name when
such name is another's may
be guilty of forgery, X 657. Otherwise when
slightly variant, 8 658. Forgery to sign under an as
sumed name, & 659. Forgery to sign name of non
existent person, & 660. Forgery to alter writer's name
when effect is to defraud,
% 661. And so to falsely alter one's
own executed deed, 2 662. Fraudulently executing deed
with a false date may be for
So when clerk makes false en
tries in book he is employed
to keep, 8 667. Signing another's name without
authority is forgery, 8668. Agent having bona fide belief
that he is authorized to sigo
8 669. Fraudulently using a man of
straw as acceptor to charge å
same name is forgery, 8670. Forgery to fill up blank with
terms other than authorized,
8 671. So to fill up without authority
cheque already signed, 8 672So for an agent fraudulently
alter terms he was
to write, & 673. But it is not forgery fraudulentiy
to induce another to sign
document, 3 674. Forgery may be by writing,
printing, or engraving, & 675. An erasure may be a
gery, & 663.
Forgery to make false entry in
8 676. And so of mutilations, 2677. An addition must be specifi
cally pleaded, 2 678. False personation is not forgery,
pass-book, 664. So as to entries in book settle
ments, 2 665. So as to books of original entry,
III. WHAT INSTRUMENTS ARE THE
when the object is to impose OBJECTS OF FORGERY.
upon third person, 2 698. Necessary that instrument Notes of a prohibited denomishould support a primâ facie
nation may be forged, 2 699. case, 8 680.
A forged bank note must be But instrument need not be in
such as to support a primâ writing or in words, & 681.
facie case, & 700. Bonds, deeds, commercial pa- Fraud on public at large is sufper, receipts, orders, “other
ficient to sustain indictment, writing," $ 682.
& 701. Judicial or political records, Not forgery to induce another 8 683.
to sign his name, $ 702.
knowingly passing an instrunature to a statement ex
ment as good, 2 703. posing the latter to suit is Uttering forged notes is indictaforgery, X 686.
ble at common law, % 704. So of certificates of character, To uttering an intent to de8 687.
fraud is necessary,
8705. But not, it seems, of diplomas Uttering may be inferentially or pictures, & 688.
proved, 8 706. Certificate as to negotiable pa
No defence that instrument was per is forgery, & 689.
obtained by a trap, 2707. So of trade-marks or labels
But there must be an exhibition when party issuing is liable
of the instrument lucri causa, to action for deceit, 8 690.
2 708. Instrument must be capable, if And a capacity to injure, & 709.
genuine, of being proof in le- When offence is felony, parties gal process, % 691.
counselling are accessaries But such process need not be
before the fact, & 710. against the party whose name Venue is placed where forged is forged, 2 692.
instrument was passed, % 711. Nor need the party injured have Uttering is an independent ofa local legal existence, % 693.
fence, 712 Nor need there be any imme- Intent to defraud to be inferred diate personal injury, 8 694.
from facts, % 713. Nor need the instrument be No defence that there was no more than primâ facie proof,
party at the time to be de2 695.
frauded, 2 714. But an instrument that in no Scienter may be proved by other possible case can be sued on
forgeries and utterings, 2715. cannot be the object of for- V. PROOF OF CHARTER OF BAYK. gery, & 696.
When bank is defrauded, existDefects as to seals, stamps, and
ence of bank must be proved attestations, may not destroy
or judicially noticed, 2 716. legal efficacy, 2 697.
VI. INTENTION. Forgery of void bank notes not Intention to defraud necessary indictable, though otherwise
to offence, 717.
pose, & 740.
No defence that the party intended “Purporting to be" not essen. no harm, or that the claim
tial, 2 738. was just, % 718.
Indictment must show instru. VII. HANDWRITING, 2 719.
ment to be capable of being VIII. HAVING COUNTERFEIT MONEY
used in legal process, 8739. IN POSSESSION.
Must aver extraneous facts
possession with intent to de-
banks indictments must con. Indictment in such case must
form to statute, & 741. describe as in forgery, 721.
Intent to defraud must be Scienter in such case is mate
specially averred and so of rial, 4 722.
scienter, 8742. Intent to be inferred, X 723.
Possibility of fraud is enough Having in possession several to sustain averment, 2 743.
kinds of notes is one offence, Party to be defrauded must be 2 724
specified, & 743 a. IX. INFERENCE OF FORGERY FROM When notes of fictitious bank EXTRINSIC FACTS.
are forged, party on whom Collateral mechanical evidence
notes are passed should be of forgery, & 725.
averred, & 744. Presumption of forgery from ut- Actual damage need not be tering, & 726.
averred or proved, 2 745. X. INDICTMENT IN FORGERY AND Not always necessary to aver UTTERING.
person on whom paper is Not duplicity to state the of
passed, & 746. fence in varying phases, 8727. Place of uttering may be laid as Variance as to general designa
place of forgery, & 747. tion of instrument fatal, $728. XI. COINING. Instrument must be accurately State courts take jurisdiction set forth, 8 728 a.
of, & 748. Of a foreign language transla- Counterfeit must be likely to tion must be given, 8 729.
deceive, 749. Setting forth of non-producible All participants are principals
, instruments may be excused,
8 750. 2730.
General description of coin is Vignettes and mottoes need not enough, & 751. be given, & 731.
Offering with intent to defraud Nor stamps, % 732.
is uttering, 2 752. Indorsements need not be given Guilty knowledge is to be innor surplusage, 733.
ferred from facts, $ 753. Otherwise as to dates, 734.
Existence of genuine original Altered and inserted words, need not be proved, 2 754.
when material must be Fraudulent diminution is coin. averred, 2 735.
ing, $ 755. Sewing to indictment is not suf- POINTS FOR DEFENCE IMPROPERLY ficient, & 736.
REFUSED, “Tenor” means words; "pur- CHARGES. (See end of chapter.)
port, ” character, & 737.
§ 653. FORGERY at common lawl is defined by Sir Wm. Blackstone as the fraudulent making or altering of a writing to the prejudice of another's right, and by Mr. East as the false making or altering, malo animo, of any written instrument for the purposes of fraud and deceit.3
According to Sir J. F. Stephen, “every one commits a misdemeanor who forges any document by which any other person may be injured, or utters any such document knowing it to be forged, with intent to defraud, whether he effects his purpose or not."
In 1865, in a remarkable case, which will be hereafter criticised, Cockburn, C. J., declared that forgery," by universal acceptation, is understood to mean” “the making or altering a writing so as to make the alteration purport to be the act of some other person, which it is not.” But this definition was soon found too scant, and afterward, in 1869, we hear it announced on a crown case reserved, by Kelley, C. B., with the concurrence of all his associates, that the offence consists in the fraudulent making of an instrument, in words purporting to be what they are not, to the prejudice of another's rights.
By Blackburn, J., in the same case, the following definition
1 That the crime of uttering forged A certificate of character to induce papers is included in the common law the Trinity House to enable a seaman definition of forgery, see In re Adutt, to act as master. R. v. Toshack, 1 55 Fed. Rep. 376, 1893.
Den. C. C. 492, 1849. Infra, & 637. 2 4 Bl. Com. 247. As to intent to Testimonials whereby the offender defraud, see infra, & 717.
obtained an appointment as a police 3 See 2 Russ. on Cr. 709 et seq. constable. R. v. Moah, D. & B. 550, for a full examination of the English 1856. Infra, & 687. cases; and see, also, 2 East P. C. 852; The like with intent to obtain the State v. Kimball, 50 Me. 411, 1861; office of a parish schoolmaster. R. v. Com. v. Chandler, Thacher C. C. Sharman, Dears. C. C. 285, 1854. In187, 1828; Pennsylvania v. McKee, fra, 2% 653, 685, 705. Addis 33, 1792; Van Horne v. State, A certificate that a liberated con5 Ark. 1845.
vict was gaining his living honestly, * Dig. Crim. Law, art. 366.
to obtain an allowance. R. v. MitchOf this he gives the following ell, 2 F. & F. 44, 1860. Infra, 8 687. illustrations :
6 In re Windsor,, 6 B. & S. 522, An order from a magistrate to a 1865; 10 Cox C. C. 118; the latter rejailer to discharge a prisoner as upon port being the fullest; and see critibail being given. R. v. Harris, R. & cism, infra, 8 667. M. (1 Moody) 393, 1833. Infra, 82 ? R. v. Ritson, L. R. 1 C. C. 200, 682, 683.
1869. Infra, & 663.
ument with intent to defraud.
from Comyn is adopted : “Forgery is where a man fraudulently writes or publishes a false deed or writing to the prejudice of another.” This definition comes nearer than the two previous toward satisfying the cases which will appear hereafter. As, however, it is too limited in its description of the instrument of forgery (“deed” or “writing”), the following definition is now proposed : Forgery in making a false suable document with intent to defraud:
The offence is consummated by the making of a false Forgery is
document, on which suit might be brought, with intent ing a false suable doc- to defraud, without any uttering?
$ 654. By the common law forgery is a misdemeanor.'
By statutes passed in England and the United States,
various kinds of forgery are made felonies. Whether Is a misde in particular cases the statute has absorbed the offence
is a matter of special statutory construction. It be law.
generally stated that unless the statute, in its terms, undertakes to be absorptive, establishing a statutory offence coextensive with the offence at common law, forgery may still be pursued as a common law misdemeanor in cases to which the statute does not reach, in those States where a common law criminal jurisdiction exists. On the other hand, when the statute in its terms is coextensive with the common law, then the statutory remedy must be exclusively followed ; and eminently important is it for the pleader to recollect this in cases where by statute the offence is made a felony.' Yet as a rule, in those States in which there is a common law criminal jurisdiction, the legislature has not attempted to absorb the common law in one sweeping statutory enactment, but has simply (as in England) declared that certain kinds of forgery shall be felonies, or shall be subject to special penalties. Where this is the
| I insert this limitation in accord- tion of forgery in New York has been ance with the law hereafter given remodelled in the Penal Code of 1882, (infra, 2% 680-86) and to exclude the 38 509 et seq. falsification of historical and news 3 R. v. Crocker, 2 Leach, 987, 1805; documents. The publication of false R. & R. 97 ; Com. v. Ladd, 15 Mass. news is an independent offence. In- 526, 1819; Com, v. Chandler, Thacher fra, & 1448.
C. C. 187, 1828. 2 3 Steph. Hist. Crim. Law, 186. See Supra, & 22. State r. Murphy, 17 discussion of Eno's Case, 30 Alb. L. R. I. 698, 1892. J. 144 et seq.; Spear on Extrad. (2d See supru, ??, 25–8. ed ) 276. The definition and classifica