It is not necessary in order to constitute a crime that persons bribed to vote should be legal voters. Heilman v. Shanklin, 60 Ind. 424.

2349. (2201.) Short weights, etc. -285. Whoever knowingly sells, or directs or permits any person in his employ to sell, any property, and makes or gives any false or short weight or measure of such property; and any person owning or having charge of scales, measures, or steelyards for the purpose of weighing or measuring any property, who knowingly reports any false or untrue weight or measure, whereby any person may be defrauded or injured,-shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars nor less than ten dollars.

2350. (2202.) Selling coal by false weight.-286. Whoever knowingly sells and delivers any coal except at the weight and measure prescribed by law, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars nor less than five dollars.

When both the seller and buyer know that coal is reckoned at less than is required by law to make a bushel, and there is no deception on the part of the seller, there is no violation of this section. Blanchard v. State, 3 App. 395.

2351. (2203.) False gas meter.-287. Whoever knowingly constructs or uses or furnishes to gas consumers to be used, any false meter provided for measuring and registering the quantity of gas consumed by any person under a contract with any gas company, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars nor less than ten dollars. 2352. (2204.) False pretense.-288. Whoever, with intent to defraud another, designedly, by color of any false token or writing, or any false pretense, obtains the signature of any person to any written instrument, or obtains from any person any money, or the transfer of any bond, bill, receipt, promissory note, draft, or check, or thing of value, or whoever sells, or barters, or disposes of, or offers to sell, barter or dispose of, any transfer, bond, bill, receipt, promissory note, draft, or check, or anything of value, knowing the signature of the maker, indorser, or guarantor thereof to have been obtained by any false pretense, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than seven years nor less than one year, and fined in any sum not more than one thousand dollars nor less than ten dollars.

(As amended Acts 1883, p. 126. Ell. Supp., section 341. In force June 5, 1883.)

An indictment for obtaining money by false pretenses must aver to whom the money belonged. Leobold v. State, 33 Ind. 484; Halley v. State, 43 Ind. 509.

It is sufficient to allege that the money or property obtained belonged to a partnership by its firm name. State v. Williams, 103 Ind. 235.

The indictment must show that the article was obtained by means of the false pretenses. State v. Williams, 103 Ind. 235; State v. Conner, 110 Ind. 469.

The pretenses must be specified, and then their connection between them and the fraud accomplished by means thereof must be shown. Johnson v. Smith, 75 Ind. 553. It must be alleged that the pretenses were false. Pattee v. State, 109 Ind. 545. The indictment must allege that the person deceived relied upon such pretenses as true, and was induced thereby to act. Jones v. State, 50 Ind. 473; Clifford v. State, 56 Ind. 245; State v. Williams, 103 Ind. 235.

If an indictment alleges that false representations were designedly made to defraud, the falsity of the representations will be imputed to the defendant. State v. Snyder, 66 Ind. 203.

An indictment charging the obtaining of property by means of a forged instrument must allege that the goods were exchanged for such instrument. Wagoner v. State, 90 Ind. 504.

Where the false pretenses consist in representing that incumbered property is unincumbered, the incumbrances should be described. Keller v. State, 51 Ind. 111.

If it is charged that money was obtained by means of a false report, it must be alleged that there was an obligation or duty to make the report. Bonnell v. State, 64 Ind. 498.

An indictment charging the obtaining of a written should describe or set out a copy of the instrument. Johnson v. State, 75 Ind. 553.

instrument by false pretenses Bonnell v. State, 64 Ind. 498;

The facts set forth in the indictment must show a felonious intent on the part of the defendant. State v. Fields, 118 Ind. 491.

As to what constitutes a false token, see Jones v. State, 50 Ind. 473; Wagoner v. State, 90 Ind. 504.

The pretenses must be made for the purpose of inducing the person to whom they are made to act, and such pretenses must be as to an existing fact, and of such a character that a person of ordinary caution would give them credit. State v. Magee, 11 Ind. 154; Keller v. State, 51 Ind. 111; State v. Burnett, 119 Ind. 392; Shaffer v. State, 82 Ind. 221.

Whether the pretenses and representations are such as would deceive any one, is a question of fact, and not of law. Miller v. State, 79 Ind. 198; Shaffer v. State, 100 Ind. 365; Wagoner v. State, 90 Ind. 504.

A false representation as to the indebtedness of a person, or as to incumbrances on property, is a false pretense. State v. Pryor, 30 Ind. 350.

The obtaining of a thing of value by false representations as to the ownership of property, or the solvency of a person, is within the statute. Todd v. State, 31 Ind. 514; Casily v. State, 32 Ind. 62; Clifford v. State, 56 Ind. 245; State v. Timmons, 58 Ind. 98; State v. Snyder, 66 Ind. 203; Miller v. State, 73 Ind. 88. Falsely pretending to be an officer, and thereby obtaining property is within the statute. Perkins v. State, 67 Ind. 270.

Knowingly representing a forged instrument to be genuine, and thereby obtaining money, comes within the statute. Strong v. State, 86 Ind. 208.

The selling of a money obligation known to have been obtained by fraud is a violation of this section. State v. Adams, 92 Ind. 116.

It is not always necessary to prove all the representations charged in the indictment. Todd v. State, 31 Ind. 514.

The representations proven must be substantially the same as those charged in the indictment. Todd v. State, 31 Ind. 514.

The using of a genuine writing to perpetrate a fraud is not the use of a false token or writing within the meaning of this section. Shaffer v. State, 82 Ind. 221.

It is not competent to prove that the defendant at other times made similar representations when the same are not connected with the acts described in the indictment. Todd v. State, 31 Ind. 514; Strong v. State, 86 Ind. 208.

Obtaining property outside of this state by means of false pretenses made in this state is not punishable under this statute. Stewart v. Jessup, 51 Ind. 413.

2353. (2205.) Presenting false claim.-289. Whoever, knowing the same to be false or fraudulent, makes out or presents for payment, or certifies as correct to the general assembly or either house thereof, or to the auditor of state or other state officer, or to the county auditor or the board of commissioners or other officer of any county, or to the treasurer or other accounting officer of any city or town, or to the trustee or accounting officer of any civil or school township, or school city or town, any claim, bill, note, bond, account, pay-roll, or other evidence of indebtedness, false or fraudulent, for the purpose of procuring the allowance of the same, or an order for the payment thereof out of the treasury of said state, county, civil or school township, city or town; and whoever, knowing the same to be false or fraudulent, or receives payment of any such claim, account, bill, note, bond, pay-roll, voucher, or other evidence of indebtedness from the treasurer of state, or the treasurer or other paying officer of any county, civil or school township, city or town,-shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than fourteen years nor less than two years, and fined not more than one thousand dollars nor less than ten dollars.

2354. (2206.) Forgery.-290. Whoever falsely makes or assists to make, defaces, destroys, alters, forges, counterfeits, prints, or photographs, or causes to be falsely made, defaced, destroyed, altered, forged, counterfeited, printed, or photographed, any record or authentic matter of a public nature, deed, will, codicil, lease, bond, covenant, writing obligatory, bank bill, or note, check, bill of exchange, or any acceptance or indorsement of any bill of exchange, promissory note for the payment of money or other property; or any post-note, acquittance, or receipt either for money or property; or any acquittance, release, or discharge of any debt, account, action, suit, demand, or other thing, real or personal; or any order, warrant, or request for the payment of money; or any auditor's warrant, treasury note, county order, city order, indorsement of any promissory note, draft, or order or assignment of any bond, writing obligatory, or promissory note for money or property; or any order or draft for the payment of money or property; or any lawful brand on a tobacco leaf, bacon or pork cask, lard keg or barrel, salt barrel or hay bale; or any ticket, check, order, coupon receipt for fare, or pass, printed, written, lithographed, or engraved, issued by any railroad company, or by the manager, lessee, agent or receiver thereof; or any plat, draft or survey of land, or transfer or assurance of money, stock, goods, chattels, or other property whatever; or any letter of attorney; or any power or authority to receive money, or to receive and transfer stock or annuities, or to let, lease, dispose of, alien, or convey any goods or chattels, lands or tenements, or other estate,

real or personal, certificate of a justice of the peace or other public officer; or any other instrument of writing, with intent to defraud any person, body politic or corporate; or utters or publishes as true any such instrument or matter, knowing the same to be false, defaced, altered, forged, counterfeited, falsely printed, or photographed, with intent to defraud any person, body politic or corporate-shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than fourteen years nor less than two years, and fined not more than one thousand dollars nor less than ten dollars.

An indictment for passing a counterfeit bank-note should set out an exact copy thereof. State v. Atkins, 5 Blkf. 458; Hampton v. State, 8 Ind. 336; State v. Cook, 52 Ind. 574; Rooker v. State, 65 Ind. 86.

If it is alleged that the forged instrument is in the hands of the defendant, or has been lost or destroyed, it is sufficient to set the same forth according to its tenor and effect. Armitage v. State, 13 Ind. 441; State v. Callahan, 124 Ind. 364; Birdg v. State, 31 Ind. 88; Hess v. State, 73 Ind. 537; Munson v. State, 79 Ind. 541.

If it is not apparent on the face of a forged instrument that it is naturally calculated to have some effect, extrinsic matter must be alleged so as to show its fraudulent character. Reed v. State, 28 Ind. 396; State v. Cook, 52 Ind. 574; Shannon v. State, 109 Ind. 407; Stewart v. State, 113 Ind. 505.

If an indictment is predicated upon the altering and passing of an instrument, the alterations claimed must be clearly set forth. Bittings v. State, 56 Ind. 101; Kahn v. State, 58 Ind. 168.

The indictment may charge that it was the intent to defraud the person whose name was forged. Shinn v. State, 57 Ind. 144.

It must be directly charged that the person frauded was connected with the transaction. State, 64 Ind. 443.

named as the one intended to be deShinn v. State, 57 Ind. 144; Yount v.

The indictment need not allege the value of the property sought to be obtained by means of the forgery. Stewart v. State, 113 Ind. 505.

A mistake in designating the character of the instrument forged is immaterial. Garmire v. State, 104 Ind. 444.

An indictment for uttering and accused knew that it was forged. When the forged instrument is set forth in full in the indictment, a mistake as to its effect and purport in referring thereto will not render the indictment bad. Myers v. State, 101 Ind. 379.

publishing a forged instrument must allege that the Powers v. State, 87 Ind. 97.

The use of the words "unlawfully and feloniously" are equivalent to the word "falsely." State v. Dark, 8 Blkf. 526.

If the forged instrument bears a wrong date, the true date may be alleged and proven and thus bring the case within the statute of limitations. Garmire v. State, 104 Ind. 444.

Forgery may be predicated upon the uttering and publishing of a forged incomplete promissory note. Harding v. State, 54 Ind. 359; Lemasters v. State, 95 Ind. 367; Powers v. State, 87 Ind. 97.

The forgery of an order for the payment of money or delivery of property comes within the statute. Garmire v. State, 104 Ind. 444; Myers v. State, 101 Ind. 379.

The knowingly uttering as true a false and forged instrument, is forgery. Bittings v. State, 56 Ind. 101; Powers v. State, 87 Ind. 97.

Forgery may be committed by signing the name of a deceased person to a note with the intent to defraud his estate. Billings v. State, 107 Ind. 54.

The forging of a certificate of acknowledgment to a valid deed is not indictable. State v. Dufour, 63 Ind. 567.

When it is alleged that the forgery was committed to defraud a particular person, the allegation must be proven. Wilkinson v. State, 10 Ind. 372; Colvin v. State, 11 Ind. 361.

The intent to defraud may be inferred from the facts and circumstances proven. Fletcher v. State, 49 Ind. 124.

Proof as to the contents and description of the forged instrument must correspond to the allegations of the indictment. Porter v. State, 15 Ind. 433; State v. Cook, 52 Ind. 574; Sharley v. State, 54 Ind. 168; Abbott v. State, 59 Ind. 70; Rooker v. State,

65 Ind. 86; State v. Pease, 74 Ind. 263.

When the forged instrument is in the possession of the defendant, parol proof of its contents may be given after notice to produce the same. Armitage v. State, 13 Ind. 441; Williams v. State, 16 Ind. 461. See McGinnis v. State, 24 Ind. 500.

If it is charged that the name of "William R. Stevens was forged, proof of writing the name Bill Stevens" will support the charge under the proper averments. Rudicel v. State, 111 Ind. 595.

Experts may testify as to the false character of bank bills, without proof that there is a bank that issues genuine bills of a like character. Jones v. State, 11 Ind. 357.

For the purpose of showing a guilty intent, the state may prove that the defendant has uttered and passed other false or forged instruments, at other and different times. McCartney v. State, 3 Ind. 353; Bersch v. State, 13 Ind. 434; McGregor v. State, 16 Ind. 9; Harding v. State, 54 Ind. 359; Robinson v. State, 66 Ind. 331; Card v. State, 109 Ind. 415.

The passing of a forged instrument does not raise the presumption that the person passing such instrument forged an endorsement thereon. Miller v. State, 51 Ind. 405.

2355. (2207.) Signing blank certificate.-291. If any justice of the peace, notary public, or other officer authorized to administer oaths or take acknowledgments, affixes his name to any blank form of affidavit or certificate of acknowledgment of any instrument proper to be acknowledged, and delivers the same, so signed, to any other person, with intent that such blank form shall be afterward filled up and used as an affidavit or acknowledgment, such justice, notary public, or other officer as aforesaid, and such person so filling up or using such affidavit or acknowledgment, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than fourteen years nor less than two years, and fined not more than one thousand dollars nor less than ten dollars.

2356. (2208.) Counterfeiting coin.-292. Whoever forges or counterfeits any gold or silver coin which shall be at the time current in this state, or utters or tenders in payment any such forged or counterfeit coin, or any forged or counterfeit bank-note, bill, or treasury-note, knowing the same to be forged or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any person, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than fourteen years nor less than two years, and fined not more than one thousand dollars nor less than ten dollars.

An indictment for uttering and passing counterfeit coin at the same time, is not bad for duplicity. McGregor v. State, 16 Ind. 9.

In describing the coins of the United States it is sufficient to refer to them as being of a certain denomination and value. Daily v. State, 10 Ind. 536.

The state may make it a criminal offense to counterfeit the coins of the United States. Chess v. State, 1 Blkf. 198; Dashing v. State, 78 Ind. 357.

In describing a counterfeit bank-note, the ornamental devices need not be set out,