The earlier def $750. Public records or process; wills. initions of the common-law offense give prominence, as has already been suggested, to public records and wills as instruments with reference to which the offense may be committed, but they are usually also included in the statutory description. Thus, the statutes usually specify in detail the altering or falsifying of any public record or book belonging to a public office, etc. It is forgery to alter a record of marriages, births and deaths. A certified copy of a decree of divorce may be forged.' Falsely making or altering a process of court is made forgery by statute; so it is forgery to falsely make a certificate of acknowledgment, or an affidavit in a legal proceeding." Forgery of wills was early recognized as a crime;" and it was held 1 Ream v. C., 3 Serg. & R. 207; S. v. Granville, 45 Ohio St. 264; Loehr v. P., 132 Ill. 504; P. v. O'Brien, 96 Cal. 171; Turbeville v. S., 56 Miss. 793. Changing a chattel mortgage on file may constitute the crime of forging an instrument, although it is also the offense of altering a public record as described in another provision of the same statute: S. v. Adamson, 43 Minn. 196. A tax duplicate is not a public record: Smith v. S., 18 Ohio St. 420. Forging an office copy of the report of the accountant general of money paid into a bank, and also of a certificate of the bank cashier, was held forgery: Rex v. Gibson, 2 East, P. C. 899. Counterfeiting the certificate of a justice of the peace as to the presentation and destruction of gopher scalps, held forgery: S. v. Johnson, 26 Ia. 407. Forging a justice's docket entry is not criminal, where the statute refers only to forging the record of a court of record: S. v. Floyd, 1 Houst. Cr. C. 110. 2 Reg. v. Bowen, 1 C. & K. 501. And it is immaterial that the marriage as to which the record is altered was void, or that the alteration, consisting in the false addition of the name of another witness, was immaterial: Reg. v. Asplin, 12 Cox, 391. But the forgery of a certificate of the parents of a minor consenting to the marriage of the minor is not within the statute: S. v. Rhine, 84 Ia. 169. 3 Ex parte Finley, 66 Cal. 262. Aside from special statute, an engrossed copy of a legislative act is not subject of forgery: In re Corryell, 22 Cal. 178. 4 Reg. v. Powner, 12 Cox, 235; Rex v. Harris, 6 C. & P. 129; Rex v. Graham, 2 East, P. C. 945. But a notice to produce is not process of the court: Reg. v. Castle, Dears. & B. 363. The English statute also makes it a felony to act or profess to act under any false color or pretense of a process of the court: Reg. v. Richmond, Bell, 142; Reg. v. Evans, Dears. & B. 236; Reg. v. Myott, 6 Cox, 406. 5 Meserve v. C., 137 Mass. 109; P. v. Marion, 29 Mich. 31. But see Rogers v. S., 8 Tex. Ap. 401. 6 Jacobs v. S., 61 Ala. 448; S. v. Kimball, 50 Me. 409; U. S. v. Spaulding, 3 Dak. 85; U. S. v. Hartman, 65 Fed. R. 490. But falsity of the matter in an affidavit will not constitute a forgery: U. S. v. Cameron, 3 Dak. 132; so held as to a false jurat to an affidavit: U. S. v. Moore, 60 Fed. R. 738. 7 Rex v. Fitzgerald, 2 East, P. C. to be immaterial that the supposed testator was living;1 or that there was no such person as the one whose will the instrument purported to be.2 3 § 751. Bonds and deeds. A mortgage is a deed within the statutory description; so is the release of a mortgage; so at common law a power of attorney to transfer stock signed, sealed, and delivered was a deed. An administrator's bond may be subject of forgery; and so may a bail bond. A certificate of city indebtedness is a bond under a statute as to forgery.8 6 § 752. Notes, bills, checks and other instruments.-The statutory description of a note for the payment of money covers a due-bill. The instrument may be described as a note, although the forgery consists in a false indorsement thereon, without which it would not be a valid instrument.10 A banknote or bill is a promissory note within the meaning of the statute;" and bank-bills or notes are within the statute although issued by an unchartered bank,12 or by a foreign bank,13 and whether current or in circulation in the state or not.14 The false making of bank-notes is now usually covered by statutes 953; Rex v. Birch, 2 East, P. C. 980; Rex v. Rhodes, 1 Leach, 24; Reg. v. Barber, 1 C. & K. 442; Rex v. Buttery, Russ. & Ry. 342. 1 Rex v. Sterling, 2 East, P. C. 950; Rex v. Coogan, 2 East, P. C. 1001. 2 Reg. v. Avery, 8 C. & P. 596. But prior to the later statutes there could be no forgery of a will which was not attested by a sufficient number of witnesses: Rex v. Wall, 2 East, P. C. 953. 3 P. v. Wright, 9 Wend. 193. 5 Rex v. Fauntleroy, 1 C. & P. 421; Reg v. Pringle, 2 Moody, 127. But a letter or order issued by a bishop certifying the admission of a person to be a deacon, with the episcopal seal affixed, was held not to be a deed, although to forge such an instrument would be a misdemeanor at common law: Reg. v. Morton, L. R. 2 C. C. 22. 6 Reg. v. Barber, 1 C. & K. 434. 7 Costley v. S., 14 Tex. Ap. 156; C. v. Linton, 2 Va. Cas. 476. 8 Bishop v. S., 55 Md. 138. 9 P. v. Finch, 5 Johns, 237. It is not necessary to allege that a bankbill is for the payment of money, for the words are found in the statute covering bank-bills; the term itself imports a promise to pay money: Townsend v. P., 4 Ill. 326. But in England it was held that a promissory note for the payment of one guinea in cash or a Bank of England note was not a note for payment in money: Rex v. Wilcox, 2 Russ. Cr. 497. 10 C. v. Welch, 148 Mass. 296; C. v. Dallinger, 118 Mass. 439. 11 Stone v. S., 20 N. J. 401, 404. 12 U. S. v. Winslow, 2 Cranch, C. C. 47. 13 P. v. McDonnell, 80 Cal. 285; P. v. Marion, 29 Mich. 31; C. v. Hensley, 2 Va. Cas. 149. 14 Porter v. S., 17 Ind. 415. To come as to counterfeiting, though by early English statutes it was a forgery. The term "bill of exchange" covers a check. The indorsement of a note is within the general terms of the statutory description although not specifically enumerated; but the indorsement must have such relation to the instrument as to have some effect in the transfer of the property evidenced by the note. The forgery of an acceptance of an order is criminal at common law. Checks of canal commissioners payable at a future day were held to be securities for the payment of money within the statutory terms. A United States treasury note is an instrument in writing. The word "receipt" implies an instrument in writing. Where the statute, after enumerating notes, bills, etc., specified "other instruments in writing," it was held that such language implied an unconditional obligation to pay; in other words, an instrument similar to the instruments previously enumerated. But the language of the statutes does not usually require such narrow construction, and cepted and indorsed, was held a bill of exchange; C. v. Butterick, 100 Mass. 12, within the English statute with regard to notes it was held not necessary that the instrument should be negotiable: Rex v. Box, Russ. & Ry. 300. 1 Rex v. Elliott, 2 East, P. C. 951; Rex v. Bigg, 2 East, P. C. 882; Rex V. Treble, 2 Taunt. 328; Reg. v. Keith, Dears. 486; Reg. v. Rinaldi, L & C. 330; Reg. v. Brackenridge, LR. 1 C. C. 133. So the false making or second use of stamps was at one time punishable as forgery by the English statute, although it would not be within the description of counterfeiting: Rex v. Collicott, 4 Taunt. 300; Rex v. Smith, 5 C. & P. 107; Rex v. Field, 1 Leach, 383; Reg. v. Allday, 8 C. & P. 136. 2 Hawthorn v. S., 56 Md. 530; Reg. V. Smith, 2 Moody, 295; Reg. v. Kinnear, 2 M. & Rob. 117. An order by a branch bank on the principal bank is a check: U. S. v. Shellmire, Baldw. 370; but a bank post-bill was held not to be a bill of exchange but properly described as a bank bill of exchange: Rex v. Birkett, Russ. & Ry. 251. A bill drawn by accused on himself, and by him ac 3 Poage v. S., 3 Ohio St. 229; Cocke v. C., 13 Grat. 750; Powell v. C., 11 Grat. 822. See as to indorsement on a check: Reg. v. Wardell, 3 F. & F. 82; or a bill of exchange: Reg. v. Winterbottom, 2 C. & K. 37; or warrant on the treasury: U. S. v. Jolly, 37 Fed. R. 108. But proof of a forged indorsement on a genuine warrant will not support the charge of uttering a false and forged warrant: U. S. v. Albert, 45 Fed. R. 552. 4 C. v. Spilman, 124 Mass. 327. Until the passage of recent English statutes the false indorsement of a warrant or order or letter of credit was not a forgery: Rex v. Arscott, 6 C. & P. 408; Reg. v. Wilton, 1 F. & F. 391. 5C. v. Ayer, 3 Cush. 150. 7 Riggins v. S., 4 Kan. 173. 8 S. v. Bibb, 68 Mo. 286; S. v. Fenly, 18 Mo. 445. 9 Shirk v. P., 121 Ill. 61; Canadian Bank v. McCrea, 106 Ill. 281. various instruments are covered which do not call for the payment of money, as, for instance, railway passes;1 or a railway ticket; or a theater ticket; it being said in such cases that it is not necessary that the instrument fully state the nature of the contract, if it sufficiently imports an obligation on the part of the company to render a service. An instrument which, if genuine, would effect the transfer of property is the subject of forgery; and so a county warrant, or a fictitious bill of costs," or fee-bill may be forged. A false application forwarded by an insurance agent for the purpose of procuring the commission which would be due thereon, if genuine, will constitute a forgery, although no policy is issued. A teacher's certificate may be forged under a statute punishing the false making of any license or authority provided for by statute.10 The false making of an affidavit may be forgery, as such an instrument constitutes a false writing." So the making of a false certificate, or of a false claim,12 may be criminal. Statutes now use very broad and general language, such as "a writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy;" or "to the prejudice of another's rights;" 15 or "creating a legal demand; " 16 or showing a "pecuniary obligation." 17 Under such general provisions any instrument on which, as the evidence shows, money might be obtained,18 or by which another might be defrauded,1 will be subject of forgery. 1S. v. Weaver, 94 N. C. 836; Reg. v. Boult, 2 C. & K. 604. 2 C. v. Ray, 3 Gray, 441. 3 In re Benson, 34 Fed. R. 659. 4 C. v. Ray, 3 Gray, 441. 13 13 This will cover a bounty land warrant: U. S. v. Wilcox, 4 Blatch. 385; but not an export bond: U. S. v. Barney, 5 Blatch. 294. 14 Smith v. S., 29 Fla. 408,- a case 5 Noakes v. P., 25 N. Y. 380; C. v. of an order drawn by a county board on its treasurer. 15 S. v. Ward, 7 Baxt. 76. 16 Horton v. S., 53 Ala. 488. 17 Thus, a telegram announcing the death of a relative and directing money to be sent to a third party for forwarding the remains was held to be such an instrument within a statutory definition: Dooley v. S., 21 Tex. Ap. 549. 18 S. v. Jefferson, 39 La. An. 331,—an instrument showing the performance of work. 19 Billups v. S., 88 Ga. 27; Travis v. E 3 § 753. Undertakings, warrants, or orders for the payment of money or the delivery of goods.- Many cases decided chiefly under English statutes relate to obligations or orders for the payment of money, and to orders for the delivery of goods. They need be but briefly noticed. A note or due-bill, though indefinite as to the time of payment, was held to be an undertaking for the payment of money,' and instruments of guaranty were held to be covered by the same description.2 A check is a warrant or order; but a request to pay a third person money on account of the supposed writer is not within such description;' nor is an instrument professing to be a scrip certificate of a county." An "order for the payment of money" covers a draft payable to bearer, or a check on a bank, or any assignable order. The fact that the instrument is not addressed to any person does not render it the less an order. An order for the payment of a sum in the bills of another person or of the drawee was held not specific enough to constitute an order either for money or for goods.10 Under the English statute punishing the forgery of warrants or orders for the payment of money, it was held that the two terms were synonymous," and covered a letter of credit,12 a post-dated check,13 or a bill of exchange or draft,1 or any instrument directing the pay S., 83 Ga. 372; Rembert v. S., 53 Ala. 467. As to "other writings or "other instruments," see U. S. v. Lawrence, 13 Blatch. 211. 1 Reg. v. Anderson, 2 M. & Rob. 469; Reg. v. Chambers, L. R. 1 C. C. 341. 2 Reg. v. Reed, 8 C. & P. 623; Reg. v. Joyce, L. & C. 576; Reg. v. Stone, 2 C. & K. 364; Reg. v. Coelho, 9 Cox, 8. 3 Rex v. Crowther, 5 C. & P. 316. A pretended order from a seaman for payment of his wages was held to be a bill of exchange under the English statute: Rex v. McIntosh, 2 East, P. C. 942, 956. 4 Reg. v. Roberts, Car. & M. 652; Reg. v. Curry, 2 Moody, 218; Reg. v. Thorn, Car. & M. 206; nor is a false authority to draw money within the dription of an order: Reg. v. Dixon, 3 Cox, 289. Reg. v. West, 2 C. & K. 496. 6P. v. Brigham, 2 Mich. 550. 7 P. v. Howell, 4 Johns. 296. An indictment charging a forged in. dorsement of an order for money which shows the instrument to be a check is sufficient to bring the case under a statute making it penal to utter a forged indorsement of a bill of exchange: P. v. Kemp, 76 Mich. 410. 8 S. v. Lee, 32 Kan. 360. 9 Powers v. S., 87 Ind. 97; S. v. Gullette, 121 Mo. 447; Noakes v. P., 25 N. Y. 380; Peete v. S., 2 Lea, 513; Alexander v. S., 28 Tex. Ap. 186; Reg. v. Hawkes, 2 Moody, 60. 10 P. v. Farrington, 14 Johns. 348. 11 Rex v. Mitchell, 2 East, P. C. 936. 12 Reg. v. Ranke, 8 C. & P. 626. 13 Reg. v. Taylor, 1 C. & K. 213. 14 Rex v. Willoughby, 2 East, P. C. 944. Where a check purported to be |