266 BINGANAN v. STATE. [180 BINGANAN v. STATE. Opinion delivered October 28, 1929. FORGERY—MAKING INSTRUMENT TO DE F RAUD.—Drawing a check on a bank by a name by which the drawer is commonly known, though done for the p urpose of defrauding, does not constitute forgery. Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court; J. Sam W ood, Judge; reversed.
Johm, E. Tatum ' , for appellant. Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and Pat Mehaffy, Assistant, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The Attorney General has properly confessed error on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction for forgery, and uttering a forged - instrument. The facts bring the case squarely within the principles decided in Harrison v. State, 72 Ark. 117, 78 S. W. 763, and State v. Adeox, 171 Ark. 510, 286 S. W. 880. The instrument was not forged, hut was simply a check drawn by the ddendant on a bank by a name by which he was commonly known. Under the common law and under the statutes defining forgery, as at common law, the genuine making of an instrument for the purpose of defrauding does not constitute forgery.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.