strument as that of a different person having the same name.90 And it is forgery to fill in a promissory note or other agreement over a genuine signature, not written for that purpose.91 But it is not forgery to fraudulently procure a person's signature to an instrument which has previously been altered without his knowledge, 92 nor, according to the decided weight of authority, to obtain a person's signature to an instrument by means of false and fraudulent representations as to its contents, or as to the purpose for which the instrument is to be used.93 § 566. Manner of making instrument-In general. Generally the manner in which the false instrument is made is immaterial. It may be by writing with a pencil,94 or by making a mark as and for the signature of another,95 or by typewriting, or printing or engraving 97 an instrument and the signature thereto. And the making 90 California. People v. Rushing, 130 Cal. 449, 62 Pac. 742, 80 Am. St. Rep. 141. Georgia. Barfield v. State, 29 Ga. 127, 74 Am. Dec. 49. Massachusetts. Com. v. Foster, 114 Mass. 311, 19 Am. Rep. 353. Ohio. Gregory v. State, 26 Ohio St. 510, 20 Am. Rep. 774. England. Reg. v. Mahoney, 6 Cox C. C. 487; Reg. v. Mitchell, 1 Den. C. C. 282; Reg. v. Blenkinsop, 1 Den. C. C. 280, 2 Car. & K. 531, 2 Cox C. C. 420; Reg. v. Epps, 4 Fost. & F. 81. The names need not be precisely the same. Reg. v. Mahoney, 6 Cox 96 son. Reg. v. Blenkinsop, 1 Den. C. C. 280, 2 Car. & K. 531, 2 Cox C. C. 420. 91 See § 567, infra. 92 People v. Underhill, 142 N. Y. 38, 36 N. E. 1049; Reg. v. Chadwick, 2 Moody & R. 545. 93 Illinois. People v. Pfeiffer, 243 Ill. 200, 90 N. E. 680, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138, 17 Ann. Cas. 703. Montana. State V. Mitten, 36 Mont. 376, 92 Pac. 969. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Sankey, 22 Pa. 390. Tennessee. Hill v. State, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 76, 24 Am. Dec. 441. England. Reg. V. Chadwick, 2 Moody & R. 545; Reg. v. Collins, 2 Moody & R. 461. Contra, State v. Shurtliff, 18 Me. 368. 63. 94 See Baysinger v. State, 77 Ala. 95 State v. Robinson, 16 N. J. L. 507; Rex v. Dunn, 2 East P. C. 962, 1 Leach C. C. 57. 96 State v. Bradley, 116 Tenn. 711, 94 S. W. 605, 115 Am. St. Rep. 836, 8 Ann. Cas. 86. 97 Com. v. Ray, 3 Gray (Mass.) 441; on a glass plate of a photographic copy of an undertaking of a foreign state for the payment of money has been held to be forgery. under an English statute.98 On the other hand, it has been held not to be forgery to paint an artist's name in the corner of a picture, in order to pass it off as an original picture by that artist,99 or to have wrappers for goods printed in imitation of those used by another manufacturer, with intent to deceive and defraud purchasers,1 for the reason that these are not documents or writings, which are alone the subject of forgery at common law. § 567. Filling blanks. When an instrument is executed in blank, it is forgery to fraudulently fill in a blank so as to make the instrument different from what is intended. For example, it is forgery to fill in a deed, executed and delivered in blank, without authority, or for a person authorized to fill in a blank check or draft for a certain amount to fraudulently fill in a larger amount, or for a People v. Rhoner, 4 Park. Cr. R. (N. Y.) 166; Rex v. Dade, 1 Moody C. C. 307. Railroad pass or ticket. Com. v. Ray, 3 Gray (Mass.) 441; Reg. v. Boult, 2 Car. & K. 604. Theater tickets. Benson V. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457, 32 L. Ed. 234, 8 Sup. Ct. 1240. Interest coupons of bonds. In re Count De Toulouse Lautrec, 102 Fed. 878. By statute in Texas in order to come within the definition of forgery, a signature when made otherwise than by writing must be made to resemble manuscript. Printing a signature in bold face type is not forgery under this provision. Heath v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 49, 89 S. W. 1063, 122 Am. St. Rep. 783. 98 Reg. v. Rinaldi, Leigh & C. 330 (under the statute of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, § 19). 99 Reg. v. Closs, 7 Cox C. C. 494, Dears. & B. 460. 1 White v. Wagar, 185 Ill. 195, 57 N. E. 26, 50 L. R. A. 60; Reg. v. Smith, 8 Cox C. C. 32, Dears. & B. 566, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1003. 2 United States. Ex parte Hibbs, 26 Fed. 421. Missouri. State v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 552. New Hampshire. State v. Flanders, 38 N. H. 324. Pennsylvania. Biles v. Com., 32 Pa. St. 529, 75 Am. Dec. 568. England. Reg. v. Wilson, 2 Car. & K. 527, 2 Cox C. C. 426, 1 Den. C. C. 284; Rex v. Hart, 7 Car. & P. 652, 1 Moody C. C. 486; Wright's Case, 1 Lewin C. C. 135. Compare, Abbott v. Rose, 62 Me. 194, 16 Am. Rep. 427. And see the other cases cited in the following notes. 3 Wilson v. South Park Com'rs, 70 Ill. 46. 4 Duncan v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 191, 215 S. W. 853; Reg. v. Wilson, 2 Car. & K. 527, 2 Cox C. C. 426, 1 Den. C. C. 284. Where defendant receives a draft signed in blank with directions to fill it in for the amount due a third per person authorized to write on a blank acceptance of another a bill of exchange for a limited amount, to write a bill of exchange for a larger amount, with intent to defraud either the acceptor or any other person. And it is forgery to fill in a promissory note or other agreement over a genuine signature, not written for that purpose.6 § 568. Alteration of instruments-In general. The expression "false making" in the definition of forgery includes the fraudulent alteration of instruments. It is forgery to alter a genuine instrument in a material part, with intent to defraud." To come within this rule, however, the alteration must be in a material matter. A immaterial alteration is not forgery, though made with a fraudulent intent. And to be material the alteration must be such as to make son for work to be done by him and to draw the money and pay it over to said person, but the work is never done, and the defendant fills in the draft and cashes it and keeps the money. Hooper v. State, 30 Tex. App. 412, 17 S. W. 1066, 28 Am. St. Rep. 926. Where one of two persons engaged in a joint adventure signed a check in blank in favor of a joint creditor and induced the other to indorse it in blank by agreeing not to fill it in for more than a certain amount, and afterwards filled it in for a larger amount, it was held not to be forgery, since it did not impose any new liability on the other person, but simply made him liable on a check for an amount which he previously owed. Ex parte Geissler, 196 Fed. 168. 5 Rex v. Hart, 7 Car. & P. 652, 1 Moody C. C. 483. 6 Caulkins v. Whisler, 29 Iowa 495, 4 Am. Rep. 236; Wheeler v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 370, 137 S. W. 124. 7 California. People v. Brotherton, 47 Cal. 388. Indiana. Bittings v. State, 56 Ind. 101. Iowa. Caulkins v. Whisler, 29 Iowa 495, 4 Am. Rep. 236; State v. Wooderd, 20 Iowa 541. Kentucky. Com. v. Hide, 94 Ky. 517, 23 S. W. 195. Louisiana. State v. Barrett, 121 La. 1058, 46 So. 1016. Massachusetts. Com. v. Segee, 218 Mass. 501, 106 N. E. 173. Oregon. State v. Frasier, 94 Ore. 90, 180 Pac. 520, rehearing denied 184 Pac. 848. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Beamish, 81 Pa. 389. Texas. Bunker v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 38, 177 S. W. 108. Washington. White v. Territory, 1 Wash. 279, 24 Pac. 447. In Com. v. Mycall, 2 Mass. 136, it was held that, if the alteration of a writ of attachment by the justice who issued it, after service and before the return day, was any crime at common law, it was forgery. 8 Florida. Turnipseed v. State, 45 Fla. 110, 33 So. 851. Indiana. Bittings v. State, 56 Ind. 101. Mississippi. Wilson v. State, 85 Miss. 687, 38 So. 46. Montana. State v. Mitten, 36 Mont. 376, 92 Pac. 969. the instrument speak a language different in legal effect from that which it originally spoke, or such as carries with it some change in the rights, interest, or obligations of the parties to the writing. The test is the legal effect of the change or alteration, and not whether some one may be misled or deceived by the paper.10 § 569. Illustrations. It has been held to be forgery to increase the amount of a bill or note,11 or of a check or draft,12 or of a cotton ticket indicating the amount of cotton sold and for which the buyer was obligated to pay, 13 or to change the amount of a receipt,14 or to alter a stock certificate so as to increase the number of shares represented by it,15 or to alter a receipt from an acknowledgment of part payment to an acknowledgment of payment in full; 16 or to alter a check after it has been paid by the bank and returned to West Virginia. State v. Lotono, 62 W. Va. 310, 58 S. E. 621. The materiality of an alteration is a question of law for the court. State v. Mitten, 36 Mont. 376, 92 Pac. 969; State v. Lotono, 62 W. Va. 310, 58 S. E. 621. 9 State v. Lotono, 62 W. Va. 310, 58 S. E. 621. To come within a statute making it forgery to falsify corporate books or records, the alteration must be such as to make the book or record speak differently from what it did previously, or to give it a different effect in some material aspect. Spilker v. Abrahams, 133 N. Y. App. Div. 226, 117 N. Y. Supp. 376. A conviction for forging an elevator receipt for grain cannot be based on the alteration of a memorandum, indicating the weigher's judgment as to the grade of the wheat, indorsed on the back of the receipt, but not forming a part of it, and the alteration of which could not vary the legal effect of the receipt. State v. Hendry, 156 Ind. 392, 59 N. E. 1041, 54 L. R. A. 794. 10 State v. Lotono, 62 W. Va. 310, 58 S. E. 621. 11 Haynes v. State, 15 Ohio St. 455; State v. Waters, Brev. (S. C.) 507; State v. Schwartz, 64 Wis. 432, 25 N. W. 417; Rex v. Elsworth, 2 East P. C. 986; Rex v. Teague, 2 East P. C. 979, Russ. & R. 33; Rex v. Post, Russ. & R. 101. 12 People v. Brotherton, 47 Cal. 388; State v. Brett, 16 Mont. 360, 40 Pac. 873; White v. Territory, 1 Wash. 279, 24 Pac. 447. 13 State v. Walton, 107 S. C. 353, 93 S. E. 5. 14 As by decreasing the amount of a receipt. Kegg v. State, 10 Ohio 75. Or by increasing the amount of receipts purporting to be for amounts paid out by the defendant, for which he was to be reimbursed by a third person. Wilson v. State (Miss.), 12 So. 332. Or by increasing the amount of a duplicate deposit slip. State v. Jackson, 221 Mo. 478, 120 S. W. 66, 133 Am. St. Rep. 477. 15 Smith v. State, 13 Ga. App. 663, 79 S. E. 764. 16 State v. Floyd, 5 Strob. (S. C.) 58. 23 or the maker by adding the words "in full of account to date," 17 by changing the date and adding a provision that it is to apply on a note given for a claim accruing after the check was paid,18 or to change the name of the person on whose notes the money receipted for was to be applied,19 or to change the date of a receipt so as to make it cover other claims than those intended, or otherwise prejudice the rights of the person signing it,20 or to change the date of a bill or note,21 or the date of an insurance policy; 22 or to fraudulently indorse the name of the payee upon the back of a valid existing negotiable note, or to change an indorsement on a bill or note so as to make it general instead of special; 24 or to alter valuation lists of tax assessors so as to enable certain persons to escape taxation,25 or to alter a notation of disallowance indorsed by an administrator on a claim against his decedent's estate, so as to make it appear that the claim was allowed; 26 or to change the name of the payee of a check,27 or the name of the bank issuing a bank note,2 or the name of the grantee in a deed after its delivery,29 or to change a writing from a non-negotiable instrument into a negotiable promissory note by tearing or cutting off a portion of it,80 or to alter a public record 17 Gordon v. Com., 100 Va. 825, 41 S. E. 746, 57 L. R. A. 744. 18 Bunker v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 38, 177 S. W. 108. 19 State v. Wooderd, 20 Iowa 541. 20 State v. Maxwell, 47 Iowa 454; State v. Kattlemann, 35 Mo. 105; Barnum v. State, 15 Ohio 717, 45 Am. Dec. 601. Changing the date of a receipt from 1882 to 1884, where it did not appear that the indebtedness of 1882 still existed, or that decreasing the indebtedness of 1884 would increase that of 1882. Allen v. State, 79 Ala. 34. 21 Owen v. Brown, 70 Vt. 521, 41 Atl. 1025; Rex v. Atkinson, 7 Car. & P. 669. 22 People v. Graham, 6 Park. Cr. R. (N. Y.) 135. 23 This is forgery by alteration. Carter v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 43, 114 S. W. 839; Strang v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 219, 22 S. W. 680. 28 24 Rex v. Birkett, Russ. & R. 251. 25 Com. v. Segee, 218 Mass. 501, 106 N. E. 173. 26 Erasing the word "not" in the indorsement "not allowed." Quertermous v. State, 114 Ark. 452, 170 S. W. 225. 27 By one of two joint executors so as to make it payable to himself instead of to a creditor of the estate, where he afterwards settled with the creditor for a less amount and kept the difference. Rohr v. State, 60 N. J. L. 576, 38 Atl. 673. 28 Changing the word "Boston," in a bank note issued by the Lafayette Bank of that city, to "New York," where there was also a bank of that name in New York, and the New York bank was solvent and the Boston bank insolvent. State v. Robinson, 16 N. J. L. 507. 29 State v. Grimm, 243 Mo. 667, 148 S. W. 868. 30 Tearing off a condition attached |