
    *Bogart v. Commonwealth.
    December, 1840.
    Forgery - Examination — Sufficiency.—A prisoner is committed for examination, is examined, and remanded by the examining- court for trial, for felony in forging and uttering a promissory note purporting to be drawn by A. D. (no intention to defraud A. D. or any other person being charged): HeijD, the examination is sufficient, and well warrants an indictment for forging and uttering the note with intention to defraud A. D.
    In the circuit superior court for the county of Henrico and city of Richmond, on the 29th of October 1840, the grand jury presented ‘ ‘an indictment against Alexander Bogart for forgery, a true bill.” There were two counts in the indictment. The first charged that Alexander Bogart, on the 29th of March 1839, at &c. “feloniously did falsely make, forge and counterfeit” a certain note in writing, which was set out as follows : 1 !$2S0. Richmond, March 29, 1839. Ninety days after date I promise to pay to the order of Alexander Bogart two hundred and fifty dollars, without offset, negotiable at the bank of Virginia, for value received.” (Signed) “Alex. Duval.” The second count charged that the said Alexander Bogart, on the said 29th of March 1839, at &c. “feloniously did utter and publish as true, and use and employ as true, for his own benefit, a certain other false, forged and counterfeited note and writing” (set out in the same terms as in the first count), “he the said Alexander Bogart, at the time he so ‘uttered and published as true, and used and employed as true, the said last mentioned false, forged and counterfeited note and writing as aforesaid, then and there, to wit, on &c. at &c. well knowing the same to be false, forged and counterfeited.” In each count, the act alleged was stated to be done “with intention to defraud the said Alexander Duval;” and each count concluded against the form of the statute.
    *Upon his arraignment, the prisoner moved the court to quash both counts of the indictment; first, because, as he alleged, he had never been examined by a court of examination for any offence, and remanded to the said circuit court to be tried for the same; and secondly, because, if such court of examination had been held in his case, the offence in regard to which such court had been held was not that charged in either the first or the second count of the indictment. In support of the said motion, he gave in evidence the record of the examining court: whereby it appeared that the said Alexander Bogart was examined by a called court of hustings held for the city of Richmond on the 24th of October 1840, “for a felony by him committed in said city and within the jurisdiction of the hustings court of said city, within two years before the 19th day oí October 1840, to wit, on the 29th day of March 1839, in then and there, and within the jurisdiction aforesaid, feloniously and falsely making, forging and counterfeiting a certain promissory note purporting to be drawn by Alexander Duval and made payable to the said Alexander Bogart, which said false, forged and counterfeit promissory note is in the following words and figures, to wit,” (here the note was set out as in the indictment) “and then and there, and within the jurisdiction aforesaid, uttering and publishing as true, and employing as true, for his own benefit, the said false, forged and counterfeit promissory note, he the said Alexander Bogart then and there, and within the jurisdiction aforesaid, well knowing the said promissory note to be false, forged and counterfeit, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.” The court, having heard the evidence, was of opinion ‘ ‘that the said Alexander Bogart ought to be tried for the said offence before the circuit superior court of law and chancery for the county of Henrico and city of Richmond. ’ ’
    *In the warrant for summoning the court of examination, the offence was described verbatim as in the proceedings of that court.
    The circuit court overruled the motion to quash the indictment. The prisoner thereupon pleaded not guilty; a jury being im-panneled found him guilty, and ascertained the term of his imprisonment in the penitentiary to be two years; and the court rendered judgment accordingly. And now he applied by petition to this court for a writ of error to the judgment.
    R. G. Scott and J. A. Seddon for the petitioner.
    
      
       See monographic note, on '"Forgery and Counterfeiting” appended to Coleman v. Com., 25 Gratt. 865; monographic noU on “Indictments, Informations, and .Presentments” appended to Doyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Writ of error refused.  