58 terms of a statute, to allege or prove actual injury.57 For this reason a person may be convicted of forging a note with intent to defraud, although the note was found in his custody when apprehended; and a person may be convicted of forging and uttering an instrument with intent to defraud, though there may have been no person in a position to be defrauded by his act.59 Nor is it necessary in order to constitute forgery of an order for goods or money that the person to whom it is directed shall accept it, or comply with it, or be able to do so.6 60 And it is no defense that the defendant has paid a forged obligation,61 or reimbursed the person injured by the forgery.62 57 United States. United States v. Plyler, 222 U. S. 15, 56 L. Ed. 70, 32 Sup. Ct. 6. Alabama. Benson v. State, 124 Ala. 92, 27 So. 1, 122 Ala. 100, 26 So. 119; Williams v. State, 61 Ala. 33; Rembert v. State, 53 Ala. 467, 25 Am. Rep. 639. California. People v. Webber, Cal. App., 186 Pac. 406; People v. Escalera, 36 Cal. App. 212, 171 Pac. 975; People v. Kuhn, 33 Cal. App. 319, 165 Pac. 26. Colorado. People v. McDonald, 53 Colo. 265, 125 Pac. 114. Delaware. State v. Anderson, 1 Boyce (24 Del.) 135, 74 Atl. 1097. Georgia. Barron v. State, 12 Ga. App. 342, 77 S. E. 314. Illinois. People v. Meyer, 289 Ill. 184, 124 N. E. 447. Iowa. State v. Wooderd, 20 Iowa 541. Kentucky. Com. v. Fenwick, 177 Ky. 685, 198 S. W. 32, L. R. A. 1918 B 1189. Maryland. Arnold v. Cost, 3 Gill & J. 219, 22 Am. Dec. 302. Massachusetts. Com. v. Segee, 218 Mass. 501, 106 N. E. 173; Com. v. Ladd, 15 Mass. 526. Missouri. State v. Witherspoon, 231 Mo. 706, 133 S. W. 323. New Jersey. Rohr v. State, 60 N. J. L. 576, 38 Atl. 673; State v. Jones, 9 N. J. L. 357, 17 Am. Dec. 483. New York. People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 198, 19 Am. Dec. 477. North Carolina. State v. Cross, 101 N. C. 770, 7 S. E. 751, 9 Am. St. Rep. 53. Oregon. State v. Leonard, 73 Ore. 451, 144 Pac. 113, 681. South Carolina. State v. Webster, 88 S. C. 56, 70 S. E. 422, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 337. Texas. Watson v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. 462, 199 S. W. 1098; Ashmore v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 502, 150 S. W. 196; Scott v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 105, 48 S. W. 523. Virginia. Gordon v. Com., 100 Va. 825, 41 S. E. 746, 57 L. R. A. 744. England. Reg. v. Nash, 2 Den. C. C. 493, 16 Jur. 553; Rex v. Ward, 2 East P. C. 861, 2 Str. 747, 2 Ld. Raym. 1461; Rex v. Crocker, Russ. & R. 97, 2 Leach C. C. 987. 58 Rex v. Crocker, Russ. & R. 97, 2 Leach C. C. 987. 59 Reg. v. Nash, 2 Den. C. C. 493, 16 Jur. 553. 60 Hale v. State, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 167, 78 Am. Dec. 488; Townser v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. 4, 182 S. W. 1104. 61 Schmidt v. State, 169 Wis. 575, 173 N. W. 638; Reg. v. Geach, 9 Car. & P. 499. 62 People v. Meyer, 289 Ill. 184, 124 N. E. 447; Ex parte Warford, 3 Okla. Cr. 381, 106 Pac. 559. B. Uttering Forged Instruments § 580. In general. The crime of uttering a forged instrument consists in offering to another a forged instrument with a knowledge of its falsity, and with intent to defraud.63 Uttering a forged instrument is a distinct misdemeanor at common law,64 and forgery and uttering are distinct offenses under many of the statutes,65 at least where they are committed by different persons or by the same person at different times.66 But it is very generally held that if an instrument is both forged and uttered by the same person as part of the same transaction, he can be convicted and punished but once,67 and some courts hold that under such circumstances but a single offense is committed.68 Under many of the statutes uttering is called forgery, or, in other words, uttering is merely one of the methods by which forgery may be committed.69 63 Maloney v. State, 91 Ark. 485, 121 S. W. 728, 134 Am. St. Rep. 83, 18 Ann. Cas. 480. To utter a forged instrument is to put it in circulation, or to offer to do so, with fraudulent intent. Holloway v. State, 90 Ark. 123, 118 S. W. 256. See also § 583, infra. 64 Com. v. Houghton, 8 Mass. 107; Brown v. Com., 8 Mass. 59; Lewis v. Com., 2 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 551; Com. v. Speer, 2 Va. Cas. 65; Reg. v. Sharman, Dears. C. C. 285. 65 Arkansas. Ball v. State, 48 Ark. 94, 2 S. W. 462. 32. Illinois. Parker v. People, 97 Ill. Iowa. State v. Blodgett, 143 Iowa Missouri. State v. Williams, 152 Montana. State v. Mitten, 36 Mont. New York. People v. Adler, 140 N. Oklahoma. Wells v. Territory, 1 Pennsylvania. Com. v. Hall, 23 Texas. Hooper v. State, 30 Tex. 66 State v. Klugherz, 91 Minn. 406, 67 United States v. Carpenter, 151 Fed. 214, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1043, 10 Ann. Cas. 509; Parker v. People, 97 Ill. 32; Boswell v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 161, 127 S. W. 820. 68 California. People v. Smith, 103 District of Columbia. Frisby v. Minnesota. State v. Klugherz, 91 Ohio. Devere v. State, 5 Ohio Cir. 69 See the statutes of the various California. People v. Compton, 123 Cal. 403, 56 Pac. 44; People v. Smith, 103 Cal. 563, 37 Pac. 516; People v. Γ § 581. Forged instrument. The instrument must be a forged instrument,70 and therefore it must be such an instrument as may be the subject of forgery, within the rules heretofore stated,71 and it must have a tendency to defraud, or an apparent legal efficacy.72 But it is not necessary to prove by whom it was made,78 or with what intent,74 or how it was done.75 And the utterer need not have forged Mitchell, 92 Cal. 590, 28 Pac. 597, 788; People v. Ah Woo, 28 Cal. 205; People v. Crane, 4 Cal. App. 142, 87 Pac. 239. Colorado. People v. McDonald, 53 Colo. 265, 125 Pac. 114. District of Columbia. Frisby v. United States, 38 App. Cas. 22, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 96. Illinois. People v. Pfeiffer, 243 Ill. 200, 90 N. E. 680, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138, 17 Ann. Cas. 703. Minnesota. State v. Goodrich, 67 Minn. 176, 69 N. W. 815. Montana. State v. Mitton, 37 Mont. 366, 96 Pac. 926, 127 Am. St. Rep. 732; State v. Evans, 15 Mont. 539, 39 Pac. 850, 28 L. R. A. 127, 48 Am. St. Rep. 701. New York. People v. Altman, 147 N. Y. 473, 42 N. E. 180; People v. Adler, 140 N. Y. 331, 35 N. E. 644; People v. Browne, 118 App. Div. 793, 103 N. Y. Supp. 903, aff'd 189 N. Y. 528, 82 N. E. 1130. Oklahoma. Wells v. Territory, 1 Okla. Cr. 469, 98 Pac. 483. South Carolina. State v. Murray, 72 S. C. 508, 52 S. E. 189. Washington. State v. McBride, 72 Wash. 390, 130 Pac. 486. 70 Alabama. Owens v. State, 16 Ala. App. 413, 78 So. 423. Arkansas. Rickman v. State, 135 Ark. 298, 205 S. W. 711; Maloney v. State, 91 Ark. 485, 121 S. W. 728, 134 Am. St. Rep. 83, 18 Ann. Cas. 480. Kansas. State v. Calhoun, 75 Kan. 259, 88 Pac. 1079. Kentucky. Smith v. Com., 151 Ky. 517, 152 S. W. 574; Lockard v. Com., 87 Ky. 201, 8 S. W. 266. Michigan. People v. Brown, 178 Mich. 155, 144 N. W. 477. New York. People v. Underhill, 142 N. Y. 38, 36 N. E. 1049. North Dakota. State v. Ryan, 9 N. D. 419, 83 N. W. 865. Tennessee. Abston v. State, 134 Tenn. 604, 185 S. W. 706. Washington. State v. Peeples, 71 Wash. 451, 129 Pac. 108. A person who passes printed copies of interest coupons may be convicted of uttering although such copies were innocently made by the printers as samples. In re Count De Toulouse Lautrec, 102 Fed. 878. If a person who signs another's name to an instrument is charged both with forging and uttering it, and is acquitted of the forgery, he cannot be convicted of uttering. Rickman v. State, 135 Ark. 298, 205 S. W. 711. 71 See § 560, supra. 72 Com. v. Cochran, 143 Ky. 807, 137 S. W. 521. And see § 571, supra. 73 State v. Blodgett, 143 Iowa 578, 121 N. W. 685, 21 Ann. Cas. 231; Com. v. Cochran, 143 Ky. 807, 137 S. W. 521; Lockard v. Com., 87 Ky. 201, 8 S. W. 266; State v. Goodrich, 67 Minn. 176, 69 N. W. 815. 74 State v. Blodgett, 143 Iowa 578, 121 N. W. 685, 21 Ann. Cas. 231; State v. Goodrich, 67 Minn. 176, 69 N. W. 815. A prosecution will lie for uttering though there was no intent to defraud when the instrument was made. Ex parte Finley, 66 Cal. 262, 5 Pac. 222. 75 Com. v. Cochran, 143 Ky. 807, the instrument himself, or have been in any way concerned in the forgery.76 § 582. Knowledge and intent. To constitute the offense the utterer must know that the instrument which he utters is forged,77 137 S. W. 521; Lockard v. Com., 87 Ky. 201, 8 S. W. 266; State v. Goodrich, 67 Minn. 176, 69 N. W. 815; State v. Mitton, 37 Mont. 366, 96 Pac. 926, 127 Am. St. Rep. 732; People v. Valentine, 147 N. Y. App. Div. 31, 131 N. Y. Supp. 733. 76 Alabama. King v. State, 8 Ala. App. 239, 62 So. 374. Arkansas. Moulton v. State, 105 Ark. 502, 152 S. W. 132. Delaware. State v. Anderson, 1 Boyce (24 Del.) 135, 74 Atl. 1097. Georgia. Raper v. State, 16 Ga. App. 121, 84 S. E. 560. Indiana. State v. Fisk, 170 Ind. 166, 83 N. E. 995. Iowa. State v. Blodgett, 143 Iowa 578, 121 N. W. 685, 21 Ann. Cas. 231. Kentucky. Com. v. Miller (Ky.), 115 S. W. 234. Louisiana. State v. Anderson, 30 La. Ann. 557, 565. Missouri. State v. Allen, 116 Mo. 548, 22 S. W. 792. Montana. State V. Mitton, 37 Mont. 366, 96 Pac. 926, 127 Am. St. Rep. 732. Texas. Bunker v State, 77 Tex. Cr. 38, 177 S. W. 108; Leslie v. State (Tex. Cr.), 47 S. W. 367. 77 United States. United States v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611, 26 L. Ed. 1135; United States v. Mitchell, Baldw. 367, Fed.. Cas. No. 15,787. Alabama. Owens v. State, 16 Ala. App. 413, 78 So. 423; King v. State, 8 Ala. App. 239, 62 So. 374. Arkansas. Moulton v. State, 105 Ark. 502, 152 S. W. 132; Maloney v. State, 91 Ark. 485, 121 S. W. 728, 134 Am. St. Rep. 83, 18 Ann. Cas. Georgia. Putnam v. State, 25 Ga. App. 322, 103 S. E. 191; Raper v. State, 16 Ga. App. 121, 84 S. E. 560. Illinois. People v. De Vore, 271 Ill. 27, 110 N. E. 850; Parker v. People, 97 Ill. 32. Iowa. State v. Blodgett, 143 Iowa 578, 121 N. W. 685, 21 Ann. Cas. 231. Kentucky. Lockard v. Com., 87 Ky. 201, 8 S. W. 266. Michigan. Carver v. People, 39 Mich. 786. Minnesota. 403, 73 N. W. State v. Rose, 70 Minn. 177. Mississippi. Gates v. State, 71 Miss. 874, 16 So. 342. Missouri. State v. Allen, 116 Mo. 548, 22 S. W. 792. Montana. State V. Mitton, 37 Mont. 366, 96 Pac. 926, 127 Am. St. Rep. 732. New York. People v. Mingey, 118 N. Y. App. Div. 652, 103 N. Y. Supp. 627, aff'd 190 N. Y. 61, 82 N. E. 728. Ohio. Lindsey v. State, 38 Ohio St. 507. Oklahoma. Wells v. Territory, 1 Okla. Cr. 469, 98 Pac. 483. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Wyoda, 44 Pa. Super. Ct. 552; Com. v. Hall, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 104, 232; Com. V. and must intend to defraud some person.' 78 There need not be an intent to defraud any particular person, however, but a general intent to defraud some one is sufficient.79 Knowledge may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the transac tion.80 So if it appears that the name signed to the instrument is Searle, 2 Binn. 332, 4 Am. Dec. 446. South Carolina. State v. Webster, 88 S. C. 56, 70 S. E. 422, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 337; State v. Murray, 72 S. C. 508, 52 S. E. 189. Tennessee. Abston v. State, 134 Tenn. 604, 185 S. W. 706. Texas. Cyphers v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 504, 150 S. W. 187; Feeney v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. 152, 124 S. W. 944. Virginia. Sands v. Com., 20 Gratt. (Va.) 800; Walsh v. Com., 16 Gratt. (Va.) 530. Washington. State v. Peeples, 71 Wash. 451, 129 Pac. 108. 78 Alabama. Owens v. State, 16 Ala. App. 413, 78 So. 423. Arkansas. Rickman v. State, 135 Ark. 298, 205 S. W. 711; Elsey v. State, 47 Ark. 572, 2 S. W. 337. California. People v. Walker, 15 Cal. App. 400, 114 Pac. 1009. Colorado. People v. McDonald, 53 Colo. 265, 125 Pac. 114. Florida. Harrell v. State, 79 Fla. 220, 83 So. 922. Georgia. Stephens v. State, 56 Ga. 604; Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 367; Raper v. State, 16 Ga. App. 121, 84 S. E. 560. Michigan. Prine v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co., 176 Mich. 300, 142 N. W. 377. Mississippi. May v. State, 115 Miss. 708, 76 So. 636. Missouri. State v. Warren, 109 Mo. 430, 19 S. W. 191, 32 Am. St. Rep. 681. Nebraska. Kimmel v. State, 99 Neb. 547, 156 N. W. 1074. New Jersey. State v. Redstrake, 39 N. J. L. 365. New York. People v. Mingey, 118 N. Y. App. Div. 652, 103 N. Y. Supp. 627, aff'd 190 N. Y. 61, 82 N. E. 728. Oklahoma. Wells v. Territory, 1 Okla. Cr. 469, 98 Pac. 483. South Carolina. State v. Webster, 88 S. C. 56, 70 S. E. 422, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 337; State v. Murray, 72 S. C. 508, 52 S. E. 189. Texas. Feeney v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. 152, 124 S. W. 944. Virginia. 800. Sands v. Com., 20 Gratt. England. Rex v. Hodgson, Dears. & B. 3, 7 Cox C. C. 122; Reg. v. Bradford, 2 Fost. & F. 859; Rex v. Holden, Russ. & R. 154, 2 Leach C. C. 1019, 2 Taunt. 334. A count charging the uttering of a forged deed by procuring the chancery clerk to record the same, with intent thereby to cheat and defraud the said clerk in his official capacity, is demurrable, since the clerk could not have been injured. State V. Saucier, 102 Miss. 887, 60 So. 3. 79 State v. Warren, 109 Mo. 430, 19 S. W. 191, 32 Am. St. Rep. 681; Williams v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 82, 142 Pac. 1181. And see § 578, supra. 80 Delaware. State v. Anderson, 1 Boyce (24 Del.) 135, 74 Atl. 1097. Illinois. Parker v. People, 97 Ill. 32. |