
    STATE against WALKER.
    The prisoner was convicted of perjury under the act of 1801. C. 6, the wordaof which are “ if any person or per- ’ ’ ... sons of their own head and imagination, or by false conspiracy or fraud with others, shall wittingly and falsely f'ortre or make or shall cause or wittingly assent to be . ^ , ⅞ ged or hnade, ⅛.
    ifan indict. ment forior' gery contains such acharge common law.thejudjjment shall not be arrested, although {he prisoner be indicted under the statute,-
    
      The words of the indictment were “with force and arms in the county afoyesaid, feloniously, wilfully and wittingly did falsely make, forge and counterfeit, and cause and procure to be falsely made, forged and counterfeited, and wittingly' aid and assist in the false making, forging and counterfeiting a certain acquittance,” &c.
    A motion in arrest of judgment was made on the ground of insufficiency in the bill, which motion was overruled by the Court, on which the Defendant appealed to this Court.
   Seawell, J.

The question for this Court is in suit-stance whether the State be entitled to any judgment upon the finding of the Jury ? The false making, or alteration of any written instrument whereby another may be prejudiced, with intent to deceive or defraud, by the common law constitutes a forgery; the indictment clearly contains such a charge ; and the Defendant being found guilty of every thing contained therein, there must be judgment for the State.

Hall, J. Daniel, J. and Ruffin, J. concurred.  