
    Commonwealth vs. Charles M. Parsons.
    Suffolk.
    Nov. 24.
    Dec. 1, 1884.
    Field, C. Allen, & Colburn, JJ., absent.
    A written instrument, headed with the name of a certain bank, containing a certain sum in figures, and requesting the payment of that sum to the order of a person named, purporting to be signed by a certain person as cashier, and addressed to another bank, is properly described in an indictment for forgery, in which it is set out according to its tenor, as an “ order for money.”
    Indictment, alleging that the defendant, on April 22, 1884, at Boston, “ did falsely make, alter, forge, and counterfeit a certain order for money, which said order was of the tenor following, that is to say: ‘ The Producers’ National Bank, Rhode Island. $807.15. Woonsocket, April 22, 1884. Pay to the order of R. G. Wood, Eight hundred seven and -AqA- dollars. To the First National Bank, New York. Theo. M. Cook, Cashier. No. 2775.’ ”
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., evidence was offered tending to prove the forgery of a certain paper, corresponding in all respects to the one, the tenor of which was set forth in the indictment, indorsed by said Wood. The defendant contended that this was not an order for money, as alleged in the indictment; and asked the judge to rule that there was a variance. But the judge declined so to rule.
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      C. H. Hudson & P. J. Casey, for the defendant.
    
      H. N. Shepard, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

The instrument, which is set out in the indictment according to its tenor, is properly described as an “ order for money.” ' Exceptions overruled.  