The crime is generally defined to be "the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's rights." The intent to defraud is its essence. There must be a possibility of some person being defrauded. Where the effect, if successful, would be to defraud a particular person, he should be named in the indictment, if known; if otherwise, a general allegation of the intent should be made. The question of intent is for the jury; but such intent, to be proved, must be alleged. The nature of the offense is a species of false pretenses or fraud; hence the importance of setting forth the intent, and the name of the person, if known.¹ It is sufficient if the forgery would have the effect of defrauding a particular person. A person may not fraudulently sign his own name (in this case to a money-order) although identical with the name of the person who should have signed.2 Forgery of a bill or note is by counterfeiting a sigand that by an immediate or sufficiently early notice he enables the party to whom he paid it to indemnify himself as far as possible. The doctrine is favored that even negligence in making the mistake is no bar to a recovery.1 See ALTER, 2; COUNTERFEIT; FAITH, Good; GENUINE; MISTAKE; OBLIGATION, 2; ORDER. 1. Established method of expression or practice; a fixed way of proceeding. Compare COURSE, 2. 2. The model of an instrument or legal proceeding; a formula.2 See BLANKS. Opposed to substance. That without which nature, or by filling up a paper with a genuine signathe right sufficiently appears to the court is ture, so as to make it appear to be signed as maker, or indorser, or other party. "False, forged, and counterfeit," in the act of February 25, 1862 (12 St. L. 347), necessarily implies that the instrument so characterized is not genuine, but only purports to be, or is in the similitude of, such instrument.4 "False or forged," applied to an instrument in writing, means that the instrument is counterfeit or not genuine, that some one has attempted to imitate another's personal act, and, by means of such imitation, to cheat and defraud. To falsely make an affidavit is one thing; to make a false affidavit is another. It is the false making that is forgery. "form." Whatever is wanting or imperfect, by reason whereof the right appears not, is a defect of substance.3 Matter of form is whatever relates, not to the purpose or object of an instrument, or to a right involved in, or affected by, it, but merely to the language or expression, without affecting the issue presented, the evidence requisite, the right of a party, or a step necessary in furtherance of legal proceedings. Formal. Belonging or essential to the form or frame of a thing; not of the substance: as, a formal defect or irregularity, a formal party, q. v.; also, according to reguMaking and uttering an instrument as agent, under lar method of procedure. Opposed, substana false assumption of authority, is not forgery. In charging forgery, the variance or the omission of a letter, to be material, must change the word attempted to be written into another word having a different meaning. The rigor of the old English law in this respect was due to the barbarous punishments imposed. The insertion or omission of a word or words will not create a variance unless the sense is thereby altered. Illustrations of harmless changes are: "to H. C. P. or order," "B. A. or bearer," "pay to bearer," "undertood" for understood, "Fayelville" for Fayetville, "Jna." for Jno.7 Money paid under a mistake of fact can be recovered. Hence, where one pays money on forged paper by discounting or cashing it, he can always recover it, provided: that he has not himself contributed materially to the mistake by his own fault or negligence: 1 State v. Gavigan, 36 Kan. 326 (1887), Horton, C. J. United States v. Long, 30 F. R. 679 (1887). 2 Daniel, Neg. Inst., 2 ed., § 1344; 11 Gratt. 822. • United States v. Howell, 11 Wall. 432, 437 (1870). * State v. Wilson, 28 Minn. 54 (1881), Mitchell, J.; State v. Young, 46 N. H. 270 (1865); Mann v. People, 15 Hun, 155 (1878), cases; State v. McKiernan, 17 Nev. 228 (1882), cases. • United States v. Cameron, 3 Dak. T. 140 (1882). ' People v. Phillips, 70 Cal. 64-66 (1886), cases. tial, real. See DEMURRER. Form of action. The peculiar technical mode of framing the writ and pleadings appropriate to the particular injury which the action is intended to redress. 4 Forms of action. The classes into which actions at law are divided. Distinguishable, by peculiarities in the writs and pleadings, at common law, as account, annuity, assumpsit, covenant, debt, detinue, ejectment, replevin, trespass on the case; in some juris12 Daniel, Neg. Inst., 2 ed., § 1369, cases; Collins v. Gilbert, 94 U. S. 754 (1876), cases; Frank v. Lanier, 91 N. Y. 116 (1883), cases. See also 4 Wash. 726; 66 Ga. 53; 19 Iowa, 299; 29 id. 493, 495; 52 id. 68; 2 Me. 365; 50 id. 409; 3 Gray, 441; 114 Mass. 318; 16 Minn. 473; 46 N. H. 267; 1 Wend. 200; 9 id. 141; 17 id. 229; 91 N. Y. 113; 15 Ohio, 721; 1 Ohio St. 187; 2 Binn. 529; 3 Phila. 351; 32 Pa. 529; 89 id. 432; 37 Tex. 592; 2 Bish. Cr. L. § 495, 2 Cr. Pr. § 398; 3 Chitty, Cr. L. 1022; 2 Whart. Cr. L. § 1418; 2 Arch. Cr. Pr. 797; 4 Cr. L. Mag. 545, 865. 2 See Webster's Dict. 3 [Heard v. Baskerville, 1 Hob. *233; 109 U. S. 274. Broom, Com. Law, 118 (m).