In the first place, however, it should be observed that the offence of forgery may be complete, though there be no publication or uttering of the forged instrument. For the very making with a fraudulent intention, and without lawful authority, of any instrument which, at common law or by statute, is the subject of forgery, is of itself a sufficient completion of the offence before publication; and though the publication of the instrument be the medium by which the intent is usually made manifest, yet it may be proved as plainly by other evidence. (f) Thus, in a case where the note, which the prisoner was charged with having forged, was never published, but was found in his possession at the time he was apprehended, no objection was taken to the *conviction, on the ground of the note never having been pub[*710 lished, there being in the case circumstances sufficient to warrant the jury in finding a fraudulent intention (g) At the present time, most of the statutes which relate to forgery make the publication of the forged instrument, with knowledge of the fact, a substantive offence.

Sec. 1.-Of the Making or Alteration of a Written Instrument necessary to constitute Forgery.

Not only the fabrication and false making of the whole of a written instrument, but a fraudulent insertion, alteration, or erasure, even of a letter, in any material part of a true instrument, whereby a new operation is given to it, will amount to forgery; and this, although it be afterwards executed by another person ignorant of the deceit.(h) And the fraudulent application of a true signature to a false instrument, for which it was not intended, or vice versa, will also be forgery.(i) Thus it is forgery in a man who is ordered to draw a will for a sick person, to insert legacies in it of his own head. (j) So if a man insert in an indictment the names of those against whom, in truth, it was not found.(k) Or if, finding another name at the bottom of a letter, at a considerable distance from the other writing, he caused the letter to be cut off, and a general release to be written above the name, and then take off the seal and fix it under the release. (7) And it appears to have been considered that if a party make a copy of a receipt, add to such copy material words, not in the original, and then offer it in evidence on a suggestion of the original being lost, he may be prosecuted for forgery.(m) The fraudulent alteration of a material part of a deed is forgery; as the making a lease of the manor of Dale appear to be a lease of the manor of Sale, by changing the letter D into an S; or the making a bond for £500, expressed in figures, seem to have been made for *£5000 :(n)

and though it seems to have been thought that a deed, so altered, is more [*711

(f) 2 East P. C. c. 19, s. 4, p. 855.

(g) Elliott's case, 1 Leach 175; 2 East P. C. c. 19, s. 44, p. 951; 2 New R 93, note (a). And see also Crocker's case, R. & R. 97; 2 Leach 987; where it appears to have been holden by Le Blanc, J., that though the note there in question had been kept in the prisoner's possession, and never attempted to be uttered by him; yet it was a question for the jury, under all the circumstances of the case, whether the note had been made innocently, or with an intent to defraud.

(h) 2 East P. C. c. 19, s. 4, p. 855.

(i) Id. Ibid.

(j) Noy. 101; Moor 759; 3 Inst. 170; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 70, s. 2; Bac. Ab. Forgery (A.). See Reg. v. Collins, post, p. 718.

(k) Rex v. Marsh 3 Mod. 66; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 70, s. 2.

(7) 3 Inst. 171; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 70, s. 2; Bac. Ab. Forgery (A.). E. Maurice was convicted at the O. B. Sessions, October, 1772, for forging a promissory note for £103 108. Maurice, who was a lodger, paid the prosecutrix some money for rent, and by taking two pieces of paper, lapping them over each other, and making them just stick together with some gum water, he so ordered it that the body of the receipt should fall on the uppermost piece, and the name on the lowermost, so that when the paper came to separated, the body of the receipt which was taken off left room for the body of the note to be written in its stead, and the name at the bottom appeared in its true place: Rex v. Evan Maurice, Annual Reg. for 1772, p. 134. But he received a free pardon, Ann. Reg. 145, but on what ground does not appear.

(m) By Lord Ellenborough, C. J., in Upfold v. Leit, 5 Esp. 100. The words inserted were in full of all demands."

(n) Blake v. Allen, Moor 619; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 70, s. 2. So in Elsworth's case, 2 East

properly to be called a false than a forged deed, not being forged in the name of another, nor his seal nor hand counterfeited;(o) yet, according to the better opinion, such an alteration amounts to forgery; on the ground that the fraud and villany are the same, as if there were an entire making of a new deed in another's name; and also that a man's hand and seal are falsely made use of to testify his assent to an instrument, which, after such an alteration, is no more his deed than a stranger's.(p) Altering the date of a bill of exchange after acceptance, and thereby accelerating the time of payment, would come within the same rule.(q) So altering a bill payable at three months, into a bill payable at twelve months, is forgery.(r) And upon the principle that the false making of any part of a genuine note, which may give it a greater currency, is forgery; it was holden, in a modern case, that where a note of country bankers was made payable at their house in the country, or at their bankers in London, and the London banker had failed, it was forgery to alter the name of such London banker to the name of another London banker, with whom the country bankers had made their notes payable subsequent to the failure. The judges held that the act done by the prisoner was a false making, in a circumstance material to the value of the note, and its facility of transfer, by making it payable at a solvent instead of an insolvent house.(s) And upon the general principle that the alteration of a true instrument makes it, when altered, a forgery of the whole instrument, it was holden, that where the indictment charged the prisoner with "making, forging, and counterfeiting a bill of exchange, and with uttering it, knowing it to be forged, and the evidence was of an alteration of the bill of exchange from £10 to £50 in the part of it in which the sum is expressed in figures, and also in the part in which it is expressed in letters, the prisoner was properly convicted; though the statute, on which the indictment proceeded, 7 Geo. 2, c. 22, contained the word alter as well as the word forge; "if any person shall falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit," &c.; from which it was contended that to alter a bill of exchange was made a distinct offence.(t) So altering a banker's

*712] £1 note by *substituting the word ten for the word one, was held to be

forgery.(u) And discharging one indorsement and inserting another, or making it thereby a general instead of a special indorsement, has been holden to be altering an indorsement (v)

The prisoner was station master at a railway station, and W. Bowers collected and distributed parcels that were sent from and arrived at the station. For each service he was entitled to payment, which the prisoner ought to have made to him; the prisoner was furnished with printed forms like the following:—

P. C. c. 19, s. 58, p. 986, where a cypher being added after the figure 8, the bill, which was for £8, became a bill for £80. But if a man alter a bond given to himself for £100 into a bond for 100 marks, this is not forgery, beccuse he thereby avoids the bond, and prejudices no one except himself. But if he had increased the sum, or had diminished it to avoid any collateral prejudice to himself, as to be free from any covenant, arbitrament, or like thing, or to prejudice another, this is forgery: Moor. 619.

(0) 3 Inst. 169.

(p) 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 70, s. 2; Bac. Ab. Forgery (A.) in the notes. (9) Master v. Miller, 4 T. R. 320; 2 East P. C. c. 19, s. 4, p. 853.

(r) Rex v. Atkinson, 7 C. & P. 669 (32 E. C. L. R.), Park, J. A J.

(8) Rex v. Treble, 2 Taunt. 328; 2 Leach 1040; R. & R. 164. The alteration was effected by pasting a slip of paper bearing the words Ramsbottom and Co, over the words Bloxam and Co., in the same manner as the prosecutors had themselves altered their re-issuable notes after the failure of their first London bankers, Bloxam and Co.

(1) Teague's case, 2 East P. C. c. 19, s. 55, p. 979; R. & R. 33. The judges held that the point was governed by Dawson's case, 1 Str. 19; 2 East P. C. c. 19, s. 55, p. 978, where the prisoner having altered the figure of 2 in a bank note to 5 (£220 to £520) ten of the judges agreed that it was forging and counterfeiting a bank note; and that 3 Inst. 171, 172, was not law in this respect; for non assumpsit might be pleaded to such a note. (u) Rex v. Post, R. & R. 101.

(v) Rex v. Birkett, R. & R. 251.

He told Bowers that the com

These printed forms he had to fill up and return. pany had determined not to pay him anything for delivery. Bowers assented. This statement was untrue, and he continued to charge the company with payments purporting to be made to Bowers for delivery. In order to furnish a voucher to the company for these alleged payments the prisoner continued to fill up the sheets as before. The prisoner paid Allen, Bowers' servant, the amount of the right-hand column only, and then wrote on the right-hand side of the dividing line, "Recd. pro. Wm. Bowers," and procured Allen to sign the receipt, and when Allen had signed it, the prisoner, unknown to Allen or Bowers, put a receipt stamp under Allen's name, and on it put a sum in figures the aggregate of the two columns. The jury found that the document thus added to meant differently to what it meant before; and, upon a case reserved, it was held that this was forgery. (w)

So if a person gives another a blank acceptance, and at the time limits the amount either by writing upon it or otherwise, and if in the filling up of the accept[*713 ance that amount be exceeded, with *intent to defraud either the acceptor or any other person, that is forgery. The prisoner was indicted for forging the following bill of exchange:

"£500.

"London, August 20, 1836. "Two months after date pay to my order the sum of five(x) hundred pounds, value received.

"To the Rev. C. H. Jenner,

In

"No. 1, Chesterfield-street, May Fair."

"C. TAYLOR.

consequence of an advertisement offering to lend money, Mr. Jenner wrote a letter, stating that he was anxious to borrow £500, and afterwards saw the prisoner. Mr. Jenner told him he wanted money; the prisoner asked him what sum; Mr. Jenner said £200 for one twelvemonth, and some discussion arose as to Mr. Jenner's means of repaying it. The prisoner said he had the money, and appointed to meet Mr. Jenner the next day in London. Mr. Jenner on the next day saw the prisoner, who took from his pocket-book a stamped piece of paper, and wrote something on the upper corner of it on the left hand, which Mr. Jenner could not then distinguish, and which he handed to Mr. Jenner, and requested him to write on it "accepted" and his name; which Mr. Jenner did, and also wrote on it "at the

(w) Reg. v. Griffiths, D. & B. 548. It is not stated for what the prisoner was indicted, but it is presumed it was for forging a receipt for money.

(z) It is "two" by mistake in the report in R. & M. C. C. R.

Bank of England," at the prisoner's desire. The prisoner said he should leave Mr. Jenner for some purpose; Mr. Jenner said, "Then of course you will leave the check with me." The prisoner said that was unnecessary, and said, "to show you there can be nothing wrong, there are the figures denoting £200 written in the corner." Mr. Jenner then looked in the corner and observed written in the corner £200; which figures Mr. Jenner stated must have been written before he wrote his acceptance. The prisoner then took the check away, and the parties were to meet at the bank coffee-house in half an hour. Mr. Jenner went there, but the prisoner did not come. Mr. Jenner stated that he mentioned £500 in the letter as a nominal sum, wishing to know what the expense of that might be, not having exactly made up his mind when he wrote what sum he wanted; but it did not appear that he gave that explanation to the prisoner. Mr. Jenner stated he never gave the pri soner any authority to fill up that paper for a greater sum than £200, but it did not appear that he made any such distinct declaration to the prisoner. Early in August the prisoner told one Edwards he had an acceptance of Mr. Jenner's for £500 which he wished him to buy, and at a subsequent time Edwards agreed to buy the bill for five shillings in the pound. He then saw it, and it was perfectly blank, with the exception of the acceptance: there was a stamp on it, and he noticed a stain in the left-hand upper corner. The prisoner afterwards produced the blank acceptance with the name C. Taylor as drawer, and C. Taylor as indorser: nothing else was then written: Edwards then desired the prisoner to draw the body of the bill, which he did. Edwards made some observations on the bill being for £500. The prisoner produced the letter from Mr. Jenner in corroboration that the bill was for £500. *714] It was proved that *an acid had been used on that part of the paper where the stain was, and that an acid applied there would have the effect of discharging ink. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and said that they were of opinion that the figures denoting £200 were in the corner of the paper when it was taken away by the prisoner from Mr. Jenner, and also that the authority to fill up the bill was confined to £200. Upon a case reserved it was contended that the facts amounted only to a fraud, and did not constitute the crime of forgery. The prisoner had authority to draw a bill, and a mere excess of authority was a fraud only, and not forgery. That the £200 in the margin were no part of the bill, and did not limit the acceptance; but the judges were unanimously of opinion that filling up the bill for £500, the prisoner having no authority beyond £200, was a false making of a bill for £500, and that the conviction was therefore right (y)1

Filling in the body of a blank check to which a signature is attached, without any authority, is a forgery. The prisoners were indicted for, uttering a forged check, and it appeared that one Townsend was in the habit of signing blank checks, and leaving them with his clerk when business called him away from home; one of these checks fell into the hands of the prisoners, who filled up the blanks with the words" one hundred pounds," and dated it; it was objected that the signature being genuine, it could not be said that the prisoner had uttered a forged instrument; but Bayley, J., held that it was a forgery of the check. By filling in the body and dating it, it was made a perfect instrument, which it previously was not, and al

(y) Rex v. Hart, R. & M. C. C. R. 486; s. c., 7 C. & P. 652 (32 E. C. L. R.).

It is forgery for one to whom a blank acceptance is intrusted to fill up the blank by inserting a sum greater than he is authorized to insert: Van Duser v. Howe, 21 N. Y. 531. Signing one's own name with intent to pass it off as the signature of another of the same name is forgery: Barfield v. State, 29 Geo. 127. So a spurious writing over a genuine autograph: Caulkins v. Whister, 29 Iowa 495. As to fraudulently obtaining a party's signature, see Clay v. Schwab, 1 Mich. (N P.) 168. Detaching condition from note is a forgery: State v. Strutton, 27 Iowa 420. Fraudulent use of blank endorsements by persons to whom they were intrusted is not forgery: Putnam v. Sullivan, 4 Mass. 53. Signing a promissory note in the name of a fictitious firm, with intent to defraud, and falsely representing that the firm consists of the writer and another person are not forgery: Comm. t. Baldwin, 11 Gray 197. It is not forgery fraudulently to procure the assent of the signer of a bond to a material alteration: State v. Flanders, 38 N. H. 324. Alteration by a clerk in merchant's books, with intent to defraud, is forgery: Biles v. Comm., 8 Casey 529. For other cases of fraudulent alteration: Flint v. Craig, 59 Barb. 319; State v. Wooderd, 20 Iowa 541; State v. Kattleman, 35 Mo. 105.

though it was not in point of fact made entirely by the prisoners, yet it had been held that the doing that which is necessary to make an imperfect instrument a perfect one is a forgery of the whole.(z)

He

On an indictment for forging a check it appeared that the prisoner was clerk to Messrs. Sewell and Cross, and had been in the habit of getting blank checks signed by the firm, and filling in the amount himself to meet the demands on the firm. brought the check in question to one of the partners and asked him to sign it, saying that Mr. Sewell had told him to pay certain rent due from Mr. Sewell to Mr. Gardiner, but that the amount was not ascertained. The check when completed was as follows:

"No. 7476.

"London, Dec. 18th, 1844.

"London and Westminster Bank.

"Pay to 1238 or bearer £100.

"SEWELL & Co."

The

[*715

At the bottom was written, "Pay in notes;" but neither this, nor the date, nor the amount was filled in when it was signed by the partner, who gave the prisoner no authority to receive cash for the check or to appropriate it otherwise than for the rent: the prisoner received the amount, and the notes were traced to parties to whom the prisoner had paid them on account of gaming debts of his own. rent due to Gardiner was much more than £100. *Neither Sewell or Gardiner was called. It was objected that the prisoner had authority to fill in a larger sum than he had inserted, and therefore was not guilty of forgery, and that no subquent disposal of the property could make that forgery, which was not so at the time the check was completed. And that Sewell might have given directions which the prisoner had obeyed; or that the rent might have been paid. Erle, J.: “I think the prisoner must be acquitted. It is clear that he had authority to fill up the check in some way or another, and that authority was derived from Sewell, and there is no evidence to show that his directions were not to get a blank check filled up for £100, and appropriate it as it has been. Moreover, it should have been shown that Gardiner did not authorize him to receive the money." *** As some doubt seemed to exist as to the law in cases of this sort, Erle, J., added, "If a check is given to a person with a certain authority, the agent is confined strictly within the limits of that authority, and if he choose to alter it the crime of forgery is committed. If the blank check was delivered to him with a limited authority to complete it, and he filled it up with an amount different from the one he was directed to insert, or if after the authority was at an end he filled it up with any amount whatever, that would clearly be forgery." Patteson, J.: "I quite agree with my learned brother that if the prisoner filled up the check with a different amount, and for different purposes than those which his authority warranted, the crime of forgery would be made out."(a)

The indictment charged the prisoner with forging a warrant and order for the payment of money, which was as follows:

The prisoner was clerk to John M'Nicoll. A bill for £156 9s. 9d. falling duc on the 8th of December, Mr. M. on that day signed a blank check, and gave it to the prisoner, directing him to fill the check up with the correct amount due on the bill (which was to be ascertained by reference to the bill-book), and the expenses (which would amount to about ten shillings), and after receiving the amount at the Liverpool Borough Bank, to pay it over to a Mr. Williamson, in order that the bill (2) Wright's case, 1 Lew. 135; Flower v. Shaw, 2 C. & K. 703 (61 E. C. L. R.); s. p., Wilde, C. J.

(a) Reg. v. Bateman, 1 Cox C. C. 186, A.D. 1845.