
    GREEN v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 1, 1911.)
    1. Forgery (§ 7*) —Subject off Forgery-Order bob Payment off Money.
    An instrument which, as set out in an indictment reads, “2/16, 1911. let Roy Denman have 685 [meaning thereby $6.85] L. T. Burns,” the explanation as to its meaning being an averment of the pleader, is the subject of forgery, since an instrument may be the subject of forgery without being directed to any particular individual, and since, if genuine, it would be valid for the purpose intended.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 8-15; Dec. Dig. § 7.*]
    2. F'orgery (§ 7*) — Subjects off Forgery-Void Instrument — Obscure or Imperfect Reading.
    A written instrument absolutely void upon its face cannot be made the subject of forgery, but if the liability be doubtful, and by allegations its legality is capable of being shown to the court, it is the subject of forgery; and, where the reading is so imperfect and obscure that, without extrinsic evidence, it does not show a capacity of effecting fraud, it is not a subject of forgery.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 8-15; Dec. Dig. § 7.*]
    3. Forgery (§ 29*) — Indictment—Facts Extrinsic to Instrument — Explanation off Meaning.
    An indictment for forgery of an instrument reading, “2/16, 1911. let Roy Denman have 685 [meaning thereby §6.85] L. T. Burns,” the explanation as to its meaning being an averment of the pleader, is good on demurrer, since the explanatory averment is suggested by the instrument itself, and made necessary in the indictment to show that the three figures meant $6.85.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Forgery, Cent. Dig. §§ 77-81; Dec. Dig. § 29.*]
    Appeal from District Court, Lee County; Ed. R. Sinks, Judge.'
    Pink Green was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

The indictment contains two counts, the first of which charges appellant with forgery of the following instrument, set out according to its tenor: “2/16,1911. let Roy Denman have 685 [meaning thereby $6.85] L. T. Burns.” The second count charges appellant with passing to I-I. 0. Goebel as true the said forged instrument, knowing it to be a forgery, etc.

The indictment is attacked on demurrer, because it does not set out an instrument upon which forgery can be assigned; and, again, that it is an instrument with no legal force or efficacy whatever, and that the indictment attempted to make said instrument effective by averments of extrinsic facts which are in no way suggested by said instrument, and without charging appellant with knowledge of such fact. The only averment explanatory of anything contained in the alleged false instrument is, where the figures “685” appear, an explanatory averment, “meaning thereby $6.85.”’ Answering that part of the criticism of appellant, we are of opinion that this explanatory averment is suggested by the instrument itself, and was necessary to be placed in the indictment in order to explain and show what the three figures “685” meant, and that it was proper to make such explanatory averment. We are of opinion that the general allegation that the indictment does not set out an instrument upon which forgery can be assigned is not sound. The instrument itself, it is true, is directed to no one; but this is not necessary. An instrument can be the subject of forgery without being directed to any particular individual. Dixon v. State, 26 S. W. 500; Kennedy v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 26 S. W. 78; Forcy v. State, 131 S. W. 585, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327. These cases discuss this question at length and cite the authorities. They settle that phase of the law in Texas, to wit, that it is not necessary in forged instruments that the same be directed to any particular individual.

It is an established rule that a written instrument, in order to be the subject of an indictment for forgery, must be such as would be valid, if genuine, for the purpose intended. If void it cannot be made good by averment. The crime of forgery cannot be predicated upon it. In other words, if the instrument is absolutely void upon its face, it cannot be made the subject of forgery; but if the liability be doubtful, and by proper allegations its legality is capable of being shown to the court, it is the subject of forgery. See Rollins v. State, 22 Tex. App. 548, 3 S. W. 759, 58 Am. Rep. 659, and Anderson v. State, 20 Tex. App. 595. The same may be said where the reading is so imperfect and obscure, without reference to extrinsic facts, it will not support an indictment for forgery, unless these facts are averred, and by the averments it is made apparent that it has the capacity of effecting fraud.

Where an indictment is incomplete on its face, so that as it stands it cannot be the basis of legal liability, then, to make it the technical subject of forgery, the indictment must aver such facts as will invest the instrument with legal force; but, if the meaning of the transaction can be with sufficient certainty discovered from the instrument itself, it will not be necessary to state matters of evidence, so as to make out more fully the charge. Applying these rules, we are of opinion that the instrument, as it was originally drawn with the figures “685,” was not as clear and as certain as it might be, and there was some imperfection or obscurity in regard to this matter, and it was necessary to explain this by alleging that the “685” meant $6.85. Otherwise this instrument seems to be clear of any ambiguity, and is clearly the subject of forgery. It was not necessary to address it to anybody; nor was it necessary to add at the end of the instrument, before the signature of Burns was attached to it, that he (Burns) as signer of the instrument would pay that amount for Roy Denman. His legal liability followed, as a matter of law, if he signed the instrument for that amount. This was an order in favor of Roy Denman for $6.85, and signed by L. T. Burns. This instrument, we think, was clearly the subject of forgery. If it had been 'a correct and true instrument, and Burns had signed it in favor of Denman, and Den-man had secured the money upon it, there is no question but what it would have created a liability against Burns for that amount of money; and he would have been legally compelled to pay it at the hands of the holder of the order.

Appellant did not file a brief or cite us to any authorities in support of his proposition. This is the only question presented by the record. There are no bills of exception; nor is there a statement of facts sent up for our inspection.

Being of opinion that the instrument is the subject of forgery, that is, that it would be a valid instrument, if true, under the statute of forgery, and that it is sufficiently plead in the indictment to charge the offense — the judgment will be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.  