must be alleged under such circumstances. If the instrument set forth is of no apparent efficacy upon its face, and no extrinsic facts giving it efficacy are alleged, the indictment is bad.67 Indiana. State v. Floyd, 169 Ind. 136, 81 N. E. 1153. Massachusetts. Com. V. Ray, 3 Gray 441. Minnesota. State v. Rose, 70 Minn. 403, 73 N. W. 177; State v. Goodrich, 67 Minn. 176, 69 N. W. 815; State v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 98. North Dakota. State v. Ryan, 9 N. D. 419, 83 N. W. 865. Texas. Carrell v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. 198, 184 S. W. 217; Barber v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. 89, 142 S. W. 582; Green v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 510, 140 S. W. 444; Forcy, alias Jones v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 206, 131 S. W. 585, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327; Rollins v. State, 22 Tex. App. 548, 3 S. W. 759, 58 Am. Rep. 659. And see other cases cited in the following note. A note dated on Sunday may be the subject of forgery, though contracts made on that day are void, if it is made to appear by the indictment and the evidence that it was in fact made on a week day. State v. Sherwood, 90 Iowa 550, 58 N. W. 911, 48 Am. St. Rep. 461. It is no defense that from the date prefixed to the instrument the statute of limitations appears to have run, where the indictment alleges that it was forged and uttered at a time within the statute. Garmire v. State, 104 Ind. 444, 4 N. E. 54. 67 Alabama. Dixon v. State, 81 Ala. 61, 1 So. 69. California. People v. Tomlinson, 35 Cal. 503. Illinois. Goodman v. People, 228 Ill. 154, 81 N. E. 830. Indiana. State v. Floyd, 169 Ind. 136, 81 N. E. 1153. Louisiana. State v. Harper, 145 La. 514, 82 So. 686; State v. Leo, 108 La. 496, 32 So. 447; State v. Murphy, 46 La. Ann. 415, 14 So. 920; State v. Anderson, 30 La. Ann. 557. Massachusetts. Com. v. Hinds, 101 Mass. 209. Minnesota. State v. Goodrich, 67 Minn. 176, 69 N. W. 815; State v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 98. Mississippi. May v. State, 115 Miss. 708, 76 So. 636; Griffin v. State, 96 Miss. 309, 51 So. 466; France v. State, 83 Miss. 281, 35 So. 313. Missouri. State v. Cordray, 200 Mo. 29, 98 S. W. 1, 9 Ann. Cas. 1110. Montana. State v. Evans, 15 Mont. 539, 39 Pac. 850, 28 L. R. À. 127, 48 Am. St. Rep. 701. New York. People v. Drayton, 168 N. Y. 10, 60 N. E. 1048. North Carolina. State v. Weaver, 94 N. C. 836, 55 Am. Rep. 647. North Dakota. State v. Ryan, 9 N. D. 419, 83 N. W. 865. Texas. Young v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. 179, 206 S. W. 197; Williams v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 605, 85 S. W. 800; Rollins v. State, 22 Tex. App. 548, 3 S. W. 759, 58 Am. Rep. 659. Vermont. State v. Briggs, 34 Vt. 501. It is only necessary to allege such facts where the instrument is upon its face, of no apparent legal effect. Ex parte Finley, 66 Cal. 262, 5 Pac. 222; People v. Di Ryana, 8 Cal. App. 333, 96 Pac. 919; State v. Hazzard, 168 Ind. 163, 80 N. E. 149; Mackguire v. State, 91 Miss. 151, 44 So. 802; State v. Jackson, 221 Mo. 478, 120 S. W. 66, 133 Am. St. Rep. 477; People v. Rising, 207 N. Y. 195, 100 N. E. 694, Ann. Cas. 1914 C 466, rev'g 148 App. Div. 935, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1138. 68 § 572. Void instruments. As a general rule, the false making of an instrument which is clearly void on its face is not forgery.6 For this reason it has been held not to be forgery to falsely make a contract which is not enforceable because a nudum pactum,69 or an undated railroad ticket which shows upon its face that it is void If it is intelligible and valid upon its face, it is not necessary to allege aliunde the ways in which it might be used to effect an injury. People v. Di Ryana, 8 Cal. App. 333, 96 Pac. 919. Where a will alleged to have been forged is valid on its face, it is not necessary to allege that the testator had any property to bequeath or in what way the person alleged to have been injured could have been injured. People v. Todd, 77 Cal. 464, 19 Pac. 883. In a prosecution for uttering a forged certified copy of a decree of divorce, it is not necessary to allege that the parties declared by the decree to be divorced were ever married. Ex parte Finley, 66 Cal. 262, 5 Pac. 222. 68 United States. Neff v. United States, 165 Fed. 273. Alabama. Rembert v. State, 53 Ala. 467, 25 Am. Rep. 639. Florida. King v. State, 43 Fla. 211, 31 So. 254. Georgia. 32, 43 S. E. 460. Brazil v. State, 117 Ga. Illinois. Goodman v. People, 228 Ill. 154, 81 N. E. 830; Waterman v. People, 67 Ill. 91. Indiana. State v. Floyd, 169 Ind. 136, 81 N. E. 1153; State v. Hazzard, 168 Ind. 163, 80 N. E. 149. Iowa. State v. Pierce, 8 Iowa 231. Minnesota. State v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 98. Missouri. State v. Jackson, 221 Mo. 478, 120 S. W. 66, 133 Am. St. Rep. 477; State v. Cordray, 200 Mo. 29, 98 S. W. 1, 9 Ann. Cas. 1110. Montana. In re Farrell, 36 Mont. 254, 92 Pac. 785; State v. Evans, 15 Mont. 539, 39 Pac. 850, 28 L. R. A. 127, 48 Am. St. Rep. 701. New York. People v. Shall, 9 Cow. 778; Cunningham v. People, 4 Hun 455. Oregon. State v. Leonard, 73 Ore. 451, 144 Pac. 113, 681. Tennessee. State v. Humphreys, 10 Humph. 442. Texas. Green v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 510, 140 S. W. 444; Forcy, alias Jones v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 206, 131 S. W. 585, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327; Rollins v. State, 22 Tex. App. 548, 3 S. W. 759, 58 Am. Rep. 659. Vermont. 503. Virginia. State v. Briggs, 34 Vt. Terry v. Com., 87 Va. 672, 13 S. E. 104. Wisconsin. Norton v. State, 129 Wis. 659, 109 N. W. 531, 116 Am. St. Rep. 979. England. Rex v. Wall, 2 East P. C. 953; Rex v. Burke, Russ. & R. 496; Rex v. Pateman, Russ. & R. 455. So it was held not to be forgery to sign an instrument set out in the indictment and variously described as a lease, a chattel mortgage, and an assignment, where on its face it would not be valid as any of the three, and no facts are alleged in aid of it. State v. Cordray, 200 Mo. 29, 98 S. W. 1, 9 Ann. Cas. 1110. 69 People v. Tomlinson, 35 Cal. 503; People v. Shall, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 778. And see People v. James, 110 Cal. 155, 42 Pac. 479; People v. Munroe, 100 Cal. 664, 35 Pac. 326, 24 L. R. A. 33, 38 Am. St. Rep. 323. without a date,70 or to sign another's name to a check not made payable to any person, nor to the order of any person, nor to bearer,71 or to alter a school census taken on a day when it could not legally be taken.72 And where a statute so prescribes the form of an instrument as to render any other form null, forgery cannot be committed by making such an instrument in a form not provided by the statute.73 For example, it is not forgery to make a will,74 or an affidavit,75 or a juror's certificate,76 or a state, county or municipal warrant,7 or a deed,78 or a certificate of acknowledgment,79 or a bill of exchange,80 or a convict bond,81 which is void on its face because not complying with the statutory requirements. But it is not indispensably necessary that the instrument be in due legal form.82 An unstamped instrument may be the subject of forgery though the law requires it to be stamped.88 And it has been held that a deed not under seal 70 State v. Leonard, 171 Mo. 622, 71 S. W. 1017, 94 Am. St. Rep. 798. 71 Williams v. State, 51 Ga. 535. 72 Munoz v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 457, 50 S. W. 949. 73 Cunningham v. People, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 455; Costley v. State, 14 Tex. App. 156; and other cases cited in the following notes. 74 Not attested by the statutory number of witnesses. Rex v. Wall, 2 East P. C. 953. 75 Where it is signed by the affiant below the name and certificate of the officer before whom it was made. Com. v. Cochran, 143 Ky. 807, 137 S. W. 521. 76 Not bearing the seal of the court. In re Farrell, 36 Mont. 254, 92 Pac. 785. 77 People v. Heed, 1 Idaho 531. As where it is void because not showing the purpose for which it was issued, Raymond v. People, 2 Colo. App. 329, 30 Pac. 504; or because not under seal. Cunningham V. People, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 455. 78 As a deed which shows on its face that it is intended to convey the homestead of a man and his wife, and which is not acknowledged by the 77 wife. Johnson v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 605, 51 S. W. 382, 76 Am. St. Rep. 742. 79 People v. Harrison, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 560. 80 Rex v. Moffatt, 2 East P. C. 954, 1 Leach C. C. 433. 81 To sustain a conviction for forging such a bond, it must appear that it was approved by the county judge as required by law. Crayton v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 88, 80 S. W. 839. 82 A charge of forgery may be based on an order directed to the treasurer of the "Peoria Board of School Inspectors," although the correct corporate name of the board is "The Board of School Inspectors of the City of Peoria," where the board would have been liable on the order, if genuine. People v. Dougherty, 246 Ill. 458, 92 N. E. 929. 83 Alabama. Williams v. State, 126 Ala. 50, 28 So. 632. California. People v. Frank, 28 Cal. 507. Iowa. State v. Shields, 112 Iowa 27, 83 N. W. 807. Maryland. Laird v. State, 61 Md. 309. Minnesota. State v. Mott, 16 Minn. 472, 10 Am. Rep. 152. i may be the subject of forgery, where such a deed is sufficient to convey an equitable title; 84 that a charge of forgery may be based on the making of a void lease, which, if genuine, might have been the foundation of an action for specific performance as a contract for a lease, or would have been effective as a license to enter upon the land; 85 that a person may be convicted of forging an indorsement on a void check; 86 and that a charge of forgery may be based on process made returnable to the wrong district, where that defect may be waived by a general appearance.87 And, as we have seen, an instrument which is of no apparent legal efficacy on its face may be the subject of forgery, if extrinsic facts showing its capacity to deceive and defraud are alleged and proved.88 A check which has been paid by the bank and returned to the maker is not a void instrument within the rule, but is a valid receipt. 89 § 573. - Imperfect or incomplete instruments. It is not essential that the instrument be perfect or complete.90 Nor need it be sufficient New Hampshire. State v. Young, 47 N. H. 402. New York. See Miller v. People, 52 N. Y. 304, 11 Am. Rep. 706. North Carolina. State v. Peterson, 129 N. C. 556, 40 S. E. 9, 85 Am. St. Rep. 756. Texas. King v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 108, 57 S. W. 840, 96 Am. St. Rep. 792; Hanks v. State, Tex. Cr. 54 S. W. 587; Thomas v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 562, 51 S. W. 242, 46 L. R. A. 454, 76 Am. St. Rep. 740. Wisconsin. State v. Hill, 30 Wis. 416. England. Rex v. Hawkeswood, 2 East P. C. 955, 1 Leach C. C. 292; Rex v. Morton, 2 East P. C. 955; Rex v. Teague, Russ. & R. 33. It is no defense that the instrument was stamped with a proprietary instead of a documentary stamp. State v. Shields, 112 Iowa 27, 83 N. W. 807. 84 State v. Saucier, 102 Miss. 887, 60 So. 3. Of course a deed not under seal may be the subject of forgery where the use of private seals has been abolished by statute. State v. Tobie, 141 Mo. 547, 42 S. W. 1076. 85 King v. State, 43 Fla. 211, 31 So. 254. 86 Carrell v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. 198, 184 S. W. 217. 87 Nalley v. State, 11 Ga. App. 15, 74 S. E. 567. 88 See § 571, supra. And see § 569, supra. Texas. Spicer v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 177, 105 S. W. 813. Wyoming. Santolini v. State, 6 Wyo. 110, 42 Pac. 746, 71 Am. St. Rep. 906. A person may be convicted of forg in itself to accomplish the purpose of the offense, but it is enough that it may under some contingency aid to bring about that result.91 It need not be addressed to any particular person.92 Nor need it be delivered.93 And it is no defense that, had it been genuine, other steps must have been taken before it would have been perfected, and these steps were not taken.94 So person may be guilty of forging a bond to be used for the purpose of dissolving an attachment, although it has not been approved, and approval is necessary to release the attachment,95 or of forging a bail bond although it has not been forfeited or attempted to be forfeited; 96 or of forging a check, though it provides that it shall not be negotiable unless countersigned, and it is not countersigned; 97 or of forging the name of the payee of a non-negotiable instrument on the back thereof, even if proof in addition to the indorsement would be necessary to enable the indorsee to sue upon it.98 And a person may be guilty of forging a check, note, or other similar instrument payable to another although it does not purport to have been indorsed by the payee.9 99 But a ing a check in which the name of the 92 See § 561, supra. 93 Holloway v. State, 90 Ark. 123, 118 S. W. 256; State v. Tobie, 141 Mo. 547, 42 S. W. 1076; Watson v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. 462, 199 S. W. 1098. In a prosecution for forging an acquittance, it need not be alleged that the instrument was delivered or presented to anyone as a true and genuine acquittance or discharge for goods delivered in consideration thereof. Com. v. Ladd, 15 Mass. 526. A person who forges the names of sureties on a stay bond and delivers the bond to the sheriff may be convicted of forgery, though the bond never became operative for any purpose because never filed with the clerk, as required by statute. Holloway v. State, 90 Ark. 123, 118 S. W. 256. 94 California. People v. Bibby, 91 Cal. 470, 27 Pac. 781; People v. Di Ryana, 8 Cal. App. 333, 96 Pac. 919. Massachusetts. Com. v. Costello, 120 Mass. 214. Missouri. State v. Tobie, 141 Mo. 547, 42 S. W. 1076. South Carolina. State v. Bullock, 54 S. C. 300, 32 S. E. 424. Texas. Dreeben v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 341, 162 S. W. 501; Wheeler v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 370, 137 S. W. 124; Jones v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 67, 130 S. W. 1012. Wisconsin. Norton v. State, 129 Wis. 659, 109 N. W. 531, 116 Am. St. Rep. 979. Wyoming. Santolini v. State, 6 Wyo. 110, 42 Pac. 746, 71 Am. St. Rep. 906. 95 Com. v. Costello, 120 Mass. 214. 96 Costley v. State, 14 Tex. App. 156. 97 Wilson v. State, 7 Ga. App. 583, 67 S. E. 705. 98 Dreeben v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 341, 162 S. W. 501. 99 Arkansas. Maloney v. State, 91 Ark. 485, 121 S. W. 728, 134 Am. St. Rep. 83, 18 Ann. Cas. 480. |