Odger's English Common Law

390 FORGERY.
example, where the prisoner conveyed land to A. and subsequently granted
a lease of the same land to his son without the consent or knowledge of A.,
fraudulently dating the lease earlier than the conveyance, he was held to be
guilty of forgery. 1 Again, if in signing his own name the accused, with
intent to defraud, personates another man bearing the same name, his
signature is a forgery. 2
But a cheque signed per pro. by a person having authority so to sign
cheques for specified purposes was held not to be a forgery within section 24
of the Forgery Act, 1861, although it was drawn for purposes outside and
in fraud of the authority. 3
" Where an intent to defraud or an intent to deceive is one
of the constituent elements of an offence punishable under
this Act," such intent must be alleged in the indictment.
But it is "not necessary to allege in the indictment or to
prove at the trial an intent to defraud or deceive any parti-
cular person ; and it shall be sufficient to prove that the
defendant did the act charged with intent to defraud or to
deceive, as the case may require." 4
It is not necessary to
prove that any one was in fact defrauded or deceived.
Thus, if X. forges A.'s name on a cheque so clumsily that A.'s banker
suspects a forgery and refuses to honour the cheque, X. is nevertheless
guilty of forgery. So, too, if Y. forges a bank note with the intention of
cashing it, he has committed forgery, although it has never left his hands.
" (1) Every person who utters any forged document, seal
or die shall be guilty of an offence of the like degree (whether
felony or misdemeanour) and on conviction thereof shall be
liable to the same punishment as if he himself had forged the
document, seal or die.
(2) A person utters a forged document, seal or die, who,
knowing the same to be forged, and with either of the intents
necessary to constitute the offence of forging the said docu-
ment, seal or die, uses, offers, publishes, delivers, disposes
of, tenders in payment or in exchange, exposes for sale or
exchange, exchanges, tenders in evidence or puts off the said
forged document, seal or die.
(3) It is immaterial where the document, seal or die was
forged." 5
1 R. v. Rltson (1869), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 200.
" In re Cooper (1882), 20 Ch. D. 611.
3 Moriton v. London County and Westminster Bunk, Ltd., [1914] 3 KB. 366.
* S. 17 (2).
6 S. 6. In an indictment for forgery it is usual to add a second count, charging the