arrest that the person making it believed that it was legal,35 or that the person arrested was actually guilty of the offense for which the arrest was made, although it has been held that the latter fact may be shown in mitigation of punishment.36 35 It is no defense to a prosecution based on an arrest by a private citizen without a warrant that the defendant believed that the offense for which he made the arrest was a felony, in which case the arrest would have been legal. Begley v. Com. (Ky.), 60 S. W. 847. 36 As where a private person unlawfully arrests another on suspicion. Staples v. State, 14 Tex. App. 136. § 559. Signing fictitious or assumed name, or name of dead person. § 560. The subject of forgery-General principles. Particular instruments. - False entries in books of account. § 561. § 562. § 563. - Recommendations and certificates of character. § 564. - Falsifying or altering public records. § 565.Fraudulently procuring or using genuine signature. § 566. Manner of making instrument-In general. § 589. Making counterfeit coin, obligations, etc.—In general. § 592. Mutilation and alteration of coins, notes and bills. § 593. Having possession of counterfeit bills, coins, obligations, etc.-In general. § 597. Issuing checks, etc., intended to circulate as money. § 598. Making or having possession of plates, stones, dies, etc. I. FORGERY AND UTTERING A. Forgery § 556. Definition and nature. Forgery was one of the commonlaw crimes. Blackstone defined it as the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another's right. Another generally accepted definition is the false making or materially altering, with intent to defraud, of any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy, or the foundation of a legal liability,2 14 Bl. Com. 247. See also the following decisions: United States. United States v. Long, 30 Fed. 678. Delaware. State v. Anderson, 1 Boyce (24 Del.) 135, 74 Atl. 1097. Illinois. People v. Pfeiffer, 243 Ill. 200, 90 N. E. 680, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138, 17 Ann. Cas. 703; Goodman v. People, 228 Ill. 154, 81 N. E. 830. Kentucky. Com. v. Wilson, 89 Ky. 157, 12 S. W. 264, 25 Am. St. Rep. 528. Maine. State v. Kerr, 117 Me. 254, 103 Atl. 585; State v. Flye, 26 Me. 312. Massachusetts. Com. v. Ray, 3 Gray 441. Missouri. State v. Cordray, 200 Mo. 29, 98 S. W. 1, 9 Ann. Cas. 1110. New York. People v. Fallon, 202 N. Y. 456, 96 N. E. 96. Pennsylvania. Gaertner v. Heyl, 179 Pa. St. 391, 36 Atl. 146; Com. v. Beamish, 81 Pa. St. 389. Texas. Bunker v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 38, 177 S. W. 108. It is so defined by statute in Tennessee. Abston v. State, 134 Tenn. 604, 185 S. W. 706; Luttrell v. State, 85 Tenn. 232, 1 S. W. 886, 4 Am. St. Rep. 760; Foute v. State, 15 Lea (83 Tenn.) 712. 22 Bish. New Crim. L. § 533. See also the following decisions: Alabama. Rembert v. State, 53 Ala. 467, 25 Am. Rep. 639. Arkansas. Rickman v. State, 135 Ark. 298, 205 S. W. 711. District of Columbia. Frisby v. United States, 38 App. Cas. 22. Georgia. Barron v. State, 12 Ga. App. 342, 77 S. E. 314. and various other similar definitions are to be found in the textbooks and reports. Forgery was a misdemeanor at common law, but in many jurisdictions it has been made a felony by statute.5 To constitute the offense there must be a false writing or alteration of an instrument; the instrument as made must be apparently capable of defrauding; and there must be an intent to defraud.6 Ut V. Illinois. Goodman v. People, 228 Ill. 154, 81 N. E. 830; White Wagar, 185 Ill. 195, 57 N. E. 26, 50 L. R. A. 60. Indiana. State v. Floyd, 169 Ind. 136, 81 N. E. 1153. Kentucky. Com. v. Fenwick, 177 Ky. 685, 198 S. W. 32, L. R. A. 1918 B 1189; Com. v. Cochran, 143 Ky. 807, 137 S. W. 521; Com. v. Wilson, 89 Ky. 157, 12 S. W. 264, 25 Am. St. Rep. 528. Missouri. State v. Sisson, 270 Mo. 59, 192 S. W. 454. New York. People v. Filkin, 83 App. Div. 589, 82 N. Y. Supp. 15, aff'd 176 N. Y. 548, 68 N. E. 1120. Oregon. Willetts v. Scudder, 72 Ore. 535, 144 Pac. 87. Texas. Bunker v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 38, 177 S. W. 108. 3The false and fraudulent making or altering of an instrument which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change his legal liability to his prejudice.' State v. Lotono, 62 W. Va. 310, 58 S. E. 621. "The making or alteration of any writing with a fraudulent intent, whereby another may be prejudiced." State v. Wooderd, 20 Iowa 541. The fraudulent making of a false writing which, if genuine, would be of some legal efficacy. State v. Rose, 70 Minn. 403, 73 N. W. 177. "Forgery consists in drawing an instrument in such a manner as to represent fraudulently that it is a true and genuine document, as it ap pears on the face of it, when in fact there is no such genuine document really in existence as it appears on the face of it to be." Reg. v. Epps, 4 Fost. & F. 81. The definition in the Illinois statute is, in substance, the common-law definition extended to take in som e instruments not known to the common law. People v. Pfeiffer, 243 I11. 200, 90 N. E. 680, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138, 17 Ann. Cas. 703. Illinois. People v. Pfeiffer, 243 Ill. 200, 90 N. E. 680, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138, 17 Ann. Cas. 703; Goodman v. People, 228 Ill. 154, 81 N. E. 830. Kentucky. Barnes v. Com., 101 Ky. 556, 41 S. W. 772. Louisiana. State v. Sturgeon, 127 La. 459, 53 So. 703. North Carolina. State v. Covington, 94 N. C. 913, 55 Am. Rep. 650. Oregon. State v. Ford, 89 Ore. 121, 172 Pac. 802; State v. Wheeler, 20 Ore. 192, 25 Pac. 394, 10 L. R. A. 779, 23 Am. St. Rep. 119. These elements will be separately considered in the following sections: tering the fabricated instrument is not an essential element of the crime." In some states forgery is divided into degrees, depending on the character of the instrument forged or the circumstances under which the offense is committed. § 557. False making of instrument-In general. To constitute. forgery at common law, there must be a false making of an instrument. Mere fraud and false pretenses are not enough. The instrument must be false. It must be made to appear to be other than it really is. For this reason it is not forgery for a person to draw a check in his own name although he has no money in the bank.10 Nor is it forgery to 7 Illinois. Mid-City Trust & Sav. Bank v. National Surety Co., 202 Ill. App. 6. Missouri. State v. Tobie, 141 Mo. 547, 42 S. W. 1076; State v. Gullette, 121 Mo. 447, 26 S. W. 354. New Mexico. State v. Garcia, 26 N. M. 70, 188 Pac. 1104. New York. 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. Oregon. State v. Leonard, 73 Ore. 451, 144 Pac. 113, 681. As to the distinction between forgery and uttering, see § 580, infra. 8 See the statutes of the various states and the following cases: Dixon v. State, 81 Ala. 61, 1 So. 69; Dudley v. State, 10 Ala. App. 130, 64 So. 534, certiorari denied 188 Ala. 77, 66 So. 91; State v. Goodrich, 67 Minn. 176, 69 N. W. 815; State v. Washington, 259 Mo. 335, 168 S. W. 695; State v. Standifer, 209 Mo. 264, 108 S. W. 17; State v. Tyree, 201 Mo. 574, 100 S. W. 645; Williams v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 82, 142 Pac. 1181; Wells v. Territory, 1 Okla. Cr. 469, 98 Pac. 483. 9 United States. In re Tully, 20 Fed. 812; United States worth, 11 Fed. 52. V. Went California. People V. Cole, 130 Cal. 13, 62 Pac. 274; People v. Bendit, 111 Cal. 274, 43 Pac. 901, 31 L. R. A. 831, 52 Am. St. Rep. 186. Colorado. De Rose v. People, 64 Colo. 332, 171 Pac. 359. Dakota. United States v. Cameron, 3 Dak. 132, 13 N. W. 561. Georgia. Barron v. State, 12 Ga. App. 342, 77 S. E. 314. Illinois. People v. Pfeiffer, 243 Ill. 200, 90 N. E. 680, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138, 17 Ann. Cas. 703. Louisiana. State v. Sturgeon, 127 La. 459, 53 So. 703. Massachusetts. Com. v. Baldwin, 11 Gray 197, 71 Am. Dec. 703. Minnesota. State v. Willson, 28 Minn. 52, 9 N. W. 28. New Hampshire. State v. Young, 46 N. H. 266, 88 Am. Dec. 212. New York. People v. Fitch, 1 Wend. 198, 19 Am. Dec. 477. Oregon. State v. Ford, 89 Ore. 121, 172 Pac. 802; State v. Wheeler, 20 Ore. 192, 25 Pac. 394, 10 L. R. A. 779, 23 Am. St. Rep. 119. England. Reg. v. White, 2 Car. & K. 404, 2 Cox C. C. 210, 1 Den. C. C. 208; Rex. v. Ascott, 6 Car. & P. 408. 10 People v. Cole, 130 Cal. 13, 62 Pac. 274. It may be false pretenses, however, and is frequently made an offense by statute. See § 1232, infra. 1 |