« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
case, other kinds of forgery, not enumerated in the statutes, may be prosecuted at common law.
That forgery of federal securities is cognizable in State courts we have already seen.
II. MODES OF PERPETRATION.
$ 655. Where forgery is a misdemeanor, all concerned, by force of the general rule as to misdemeanors, are principals. Where, however, the offence—e. g., in counterfeiting concerned is a statutory felony, those counselling and advising are in are
principals. accessaries before the fact, in those States in which the distinction between principal and accessary is maintained, while in other States such persons are principals. But all actually contributing to the work are principals. Nor is it necessary that they should be cognizant of each other's action. Thus in trials for forging bank paper, the maker of the paper, the engraver of the plate, the filler up of the instrument, have been held principals, though no one of them knew that the others were concerned.3
A fortiori is this the case with principal and agent, the principal present and commanding, and the agent executing. And a party acting through an innocent agent is principal in the first degree.”
$ 656. Forgery may be committed by a partner, in falsely altering the books of the firm, when the intent is to defraud his partners.
guilty of $ 657. When a person signs paper in his own name, as against though it be on a false affirmation of procuration from partner. another, this is not forgery," unless, as we will see, the Party sign
ing his name written is used in such a way as to throw the
Partner may be
1875; Gooden v. State, 55 Ala. 178, ? See Gregory v. State, 26 Ohio St. 1876; Elmore v. State, 92 Ala. 51, 510, 1875; State v. Crab, 121 Mo. 554, 1890. 1894; Com. v. Fitzpatrick, 3 Penn. 6 R. v. Smith, 9 Cox C. C. 162, 1862 ; Distr. Rep. 305, 1894. Infra, 8710. Leigh & C. 168; R. v. Moody, 9 Cox
3 R. v. Dade, 1 Mood. C. C. 307, C. C. 166, 1862; Leigh & C. 173; R. 1831 ; R. v. Kirkwood, Ibid. 304, 1831. v. Dodd, 18 L. T. (N. S.) 89, 1868. Supra, & 216.
These are cases of forgery by the treas* R. v. Bingley, R. & R. 446; Com. urers of voluntary societies to defraud r. Stevens, 10 Mass. 181, 1813; Lang- their associates; but the reasoning don v. People, 133 Ill. 382, 1890; Ter- applies to all partnerships. ritory v. Barth, (Ariz.) 15 Pac. Rep. * R. v. White, 2 C. & K. 404, 1849 ; 673, 1887.
1 Den. C. C. 208; 2 Cox C. C. 210. 5 Com. v. Hill, 11 Mass. 136, 1814; For other cases, see infra, 28 669, 674. Gregory v. State, 26 Ohio St. 510,
onus of the obligation on another person bearing the same name. But if the name signed is common to two persons, one of whom signs it, or causes it to be signed in such a way (e.g., by adding or even implying a wrong
1 So in a case where an innocent being the name of a different person person was induced to sign his name from that of the person signing it, and as accepting a bill, and the defendant intended to be mistaken for the name introduced a false address, it was held of that person ; R. v. Mahoney, 6 Cox forgery. R. v. Blenkinshop, 2 C. & K. C. C. 487; infra, 2 670; 531, 1847 ; s. c. 1 Den. C. C. 276; R. “(iv) In a name of a person perv. Mitchell, Ibid. 282, 1844; State v. sonated by the person signing the Farrell, 82 Iowa, 553, 1891. · Infra, document, provided that the effect of 670, 713.
the instrument depends upon the idenSir J. F. Stephen (Dig. Crim. Law, tity between the person signing the art. 356) gives the following:
document and the person whom he “ To make a false document is professes to be; R. v. Hatfield, 2 Russ.
“(a) To make a document purport- on Cr. 733, ing to be what ir fact it is not; R. v. “But it is not making a false docuRitson, R. & M. 486 ; infra, 88 663, ment682;
“To procure the execution of a docu“(6) To alter a document, without ment by fraud; R. v. Chadwick, 2 M. authority, in such a manner that if & R. 545; infra, 22 674, 702; the alteration had been authorized it “To omit from a document being would have altered the effect of the drawn up matter which would have document; R. v. Hart, R. & M. 486; altered its effect if introduced, and Moore v. Com., 92 Ky. 630, 1892; Com. which might have been introduced, v. Wilson, 89 Ky. 157, 1889; infra, unless the matter omitted qualifies the 671; 8. c. 7 C. & R. 652;
matter inserted; 1 Hawk P.C. 265; "(c) To introduce into a document, “To sign a document in the name without authority, whilst it is being of a person personated by the person drawn up, matter, which, if it had been who signs it, or in a fictitious crime, authorized, would have altered the ef- provided that the effect of the instrufect of the document; R. v. Griffiths, ment does not depend upon his idenD. & B. 584;
tity with that person, or the correct“(d) To sign a document,
ness of the same assumed by him. * (i) In the name of any person
“It is not essential to the making of without his authority, whether such a false document that the false docuname is or is not the same as that of ment should be so framed that, if the person signing;
genuine, it would have been valid or “ (ii) In the name of any fictitious binding, provided that, in cases in person alleged to exist, whether the which the forgery of any particular fictitious person is or is not alleged to instrument is made a specific offence be of the same name as the person by any statute, the false document signing; infra, 2670. Sheppard's Case, must, in order that the offence may be 1 Leach, 226; R. v. Parkes, 2 Leach, completed, fall within the description 775; infra, 22 660, 726;
given in the Act. But see intra, “(iii) In a name represented as % 692.
address) as to make the writing purport to be by that other, this is forgery ;' and so when one of these two, having obtained possession of a bill, cheque, or order payable to another, indorses it, knowing he is not the person to whom the bill or check was payable. This is falsely personating another, and signing that other's name, which is indictable as forgery ;; and it is no defence that the two parties have the same name.
$ 658. But it is said to be otherwise when names are not identical (e.g., Storer and Story), and when the defendant, by
Otherwise signing his true name (Story), obtains from the post-office when a money order addressed to Storer. This
slightly able as a false pretence, but not as a forgery at common
$ 659. It is forgery- to sign a money order in an assumed name, if the name were assumed to defraud the
person to whom
Forgery to such order was given, though the prisoner was known to sigu under the prosecutor only by the assumed name. But obtain- sumed ing money on the pretence that a signature by a non-existent person is good, is not forgery but false pretences.
§ 660. It may, however, be forgery? to sign the names of non
“The fact that a document is made 1 Leach C. C. 438, 1787 ; R. 2. Bonto resemble that which it purports to tien, R & R. 260, 1813; People v. be, and is not, is evidence, for the con- Peacock, 6 Cowen, 73, 1826; U.S. ". sideration of the jury, of an intent to Long, 30 Fed. Rep. 678, 1887; State r. defraud, but is not essential to the Wheeler, 20 Oreg. 192, 1890. Infra, making of a false document.
670. “Provided that, in cases in which 3 R. v. Epps, 4 F. & F. 81, 1864; the forgery of any particular instru- Mead v. Young, 4 T. R. 28, 1790. ment is made a specific offence by any Infra, & 680 statute, the false document must have * R. v. Story, R. & R. C. C. 81, such a resemblance to the document 1805. which it is intended to resemble as • R. v Francis, R. & R. C. C. 209, to be likely to deceive a common 1811. See, fully, infra, 660. person'
6 R. v. Martin, 14 Cox C. C. 375, R. r. Webb, Bayl. Bills, 432; Bar. 1879; 41 L. T. (V. S.) 531; see infra, field v. State, 29 Ga. 127, 1859. See 78 1144, 1162. Com. v. Foster, 114 Mass. 311, 1873. ? R. v. Lewis, Fost. 116; R In State v. Robinson, 1 Harr. (N. J) Wilks, 2 East. P. C. 957; R. v. Bolo 507, 1838, it was held forgery to change land, Ibid. ; R. v. Lockett, 1 Leach, on a bank bill the name of the city 94, 1772; R. v. Parks et al., 2 Ibid. where the bank was situate so as to 775, 1796; 2 East P. C. 963; R. v. charge another bank of the same name Froud, 1 B. & B. 300; R. & R. 389, but of a different city.
1819; R. v. Sheppard, 1 Leach, 226, ? R. v. Aickles, 2 East P. C. 988; 1781; R. v. Whiley, 2 Ibid. 983, 1804; VOL. I. -40
existent persons or of a non-existent firm,' who apparently (though
not really) represent responsible parties. If, however, It may be forgery to
the fictitious name be one which the defendant bad sign name of non
been accustomed to employ, and under which he had
done business, a conviction cannot be sustained; nor is person.
it forgery when the offence is not the assumption of the name of a supposed third person, but the adoption of an alias or alternative name by the party charged.
It is forgery at common law to forge the name of an imaginary child as representative of a childless person. So, also, is it indictable, on the same reasoning, to forge the name of a non-existing, though apparently responsible, corporation, when the object is to defraud. This principle is of much use in cases where a corporation alleged to be defrauded is incorrectly deseribed, or is prohibited from issuing the notes in question. In such case it is sufficient to aver as the party defrauded the person on whom it is attempted to pass the forged note.?
$ 661. Where the drawer of a paid check on a bank, after it was
R. & R. 90, 1805; R. v. Francis, Ibid. not really) good name may be forgery.
and see R. v. Webb, 3 B. & B. See People v. Elliott, 90 Cal. 586. 228, 1821; R. v. Watts, R. & R. 436, 1891, where the defendant intended 1821 ; U. S. v. Turner, 7 Pet. 132, to forge the check of R. & M., a firm, 1833 ; State v. Hayden, 15 N. H. 355, but actually signed A. E. R. & C. 1844 ; Com. v. Costello, 119 Mass. 214, Held, not forgery, although indicta1876; Com. v. Smith, 6 S. & R. 569, ble under statute of California for 1819; Sasser v. State, 13 Ohio, 453, making and passing checks bearing 1844; State v. Givens, 5 Ala. 747, fictitious names 1843; Henderson v. State, 14 Tex. ? R. v. Bontien, R. & R 260, 1813: 503, 1855; Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. R. v. Aickles, 1 Leach C. C. 438, 347, 1892; State v. Minton, 116 Mo. 1787 : 2 East P. C. 988. 605, 1893; State v. Allen, 116 Mo. 3 R. v. Martin, 14 Cox C. C. 375, 548, 1893; Brewer v. State, 32 Tex. 1879; affirming Dunn's Case, 1 Leach Cr. 74, 1893; Billings v State, 107 C. C. 57, 1765; Com. ». Baldwin, 1: Ind. 54, 1886; People v. Parker, 67 Gray, 197, 1858. Mich. 222, 1887; State v Wheeler, 20 * R. v. Lewis, 2 East P. C. 957. Oreg. 192, 1890 ; State v. Warren, 109 Infra, 8 698, 716; U. S r. MitchMo. 430, 1891. As to intent, see R. v. ell, Baldwin C. C. 366, 1831 ; White Bontien, R. & R 260, 1813; R v. Pea- v. Com., 4 Binn. 418, 1812; Buckland cock, Ibid. 273. See infra, & 698. v. Com., 8 Leigh, 732, 1837.
· R. v. Rogers, 8 C. & P. 6:29, 1838; 6 Infra, & 698. R. v. Ashby, 2 F. & F. 560, 1860. In * Infra, & 744. As to false pretence other words, to declare a bad note to in such cases, see infra, & 1123, be good is a false pretence; to sign a 1162. bad note by an apparently (though
returned to him, altered his signature so as to give it the appearance of forgery, in order to defraud the bank and criminate
Forgery to the payee, this has been held in England not to be alter
writer's forgery. But as an action, supposing the altered sig- name nature to be what it purported to be after alteration, effect is to would lie against the bank in favor of the alterer, this defraud. decision cannot be sustained.?
The test is, could such an action primâ facie lie on such fraudulently altered paper, by means of such alterations, against a person intended, directly or indirectly, to be defrauded? If it could not, the offenre, no doubt, is not forgery. But if it would sustain such an action, forgery is made out.
$ 662. Is it forgery to alter cne's own deed, so as to make it purport to be irhat it is not, and thus, if it be sustained as altered, to prejudice the rights of another? Now if A., And so to engaging with B. to convey to the latter certain land, and alter one's undertaking, after the terms are settled, to draw the deed, cuted omit or introduce a material item in defiance of his agreement, this may be forgery, in accordance with principles hereafter laid down in another relation.
And it is clear that if, after a vendor, by an instrument duly executed, has conveyed land to another, he should falsely alter the date of the deed, so as to cut out intermediate incumbrances, this would be forgery. The deed has become a muniment of title ; a false alteration is made in it in such a way as to prejudice prior vendees or mortgagees, if the alteration be sustained ; and hence it is forgery to make the alteration.'
$ 663. Still further has this principle been pushed in England, in a decision sustained by the judges in 1869, in a crown case
Fraudu. reserved. A., the vendor of lands, after duly conveying lently exthem to B., who entered into possession, leased them to deed with C.(A.'s son), by a deed antedating that to B., and C. pro- date duced this lease in an action against B. Was the intro- may be
forgery. duction of this false date forgery in A. and C.? So was
i Brittain v. Bank of London, 3 F. People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. 198, & F. 465, 1862 ; 11 W. R. 569. 1828, may seem to conflict with this
See 2 Russ. on Cr. 719. Infra, 2 695. principle; but the paper altered by
People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. 198, the maker in People v. Fitch was not 1828; People v. Cady, 6 Hill, 490, a muniment of title, but an exhausted 1844. Infra, %% 680 et seq.
draft. * Infra, & 671.