
    John Henry Bynam v. The State of Ohio.
    The plaintiff in error was charged in an indictment with forging an order for the payment of money of the following tenor: “M. C. & Co., Pay Binam $5.75. J. L. C.” Held, that the writing does not, on its face, unaided by inuendo, or the statement of extrinsic facts, import an order for the pay-•meat of money; and the indictment containing no such averment, is bad.
    Error to the court of common pleas of Greene county.
    At tbe February term, 1867, of Greene county common pleas,, the plaintiff in error, was indicted for forgery. The indictment contains two counts; plea, not guilty. Trial had: verdict, guilty, as charged in the first count; and not guilty, as charged in the-second.
    *The first count charges, with date and venue, that Bynam falsely made and forged an order for the .payment of money, of the. tenor following:
    “ M. C. & Co. — Pay Binam $5.75. J. L. O.”
    with intent to damage and defraud David MillenJ Eli Millen, John-L. Connable and Luke Connable, doing business under the firm name and style of Millen, Connable & Co., contrary to the statute, etc.
    Plaintiff in error moved in arrest of judgment. His motion was-overruled, and he was sentenced to the penitentiary for three years..
    To reverse this judgment the present writ of error was brought.
    
      B. Nesbitt, for plaintiff in error.
    
      John Little, prosecuting attorney, for the state.
   White, J.

The first count of the indictment, on which alone-the defendant was convicted, is insufficient. The writing, of which it is sought to predicate forgery does not, on its face, unaided by inuendo, or the averment of extrinsic facts, import an order for the payment of money. ;

No definite meaning can be ascribed to the letters “M. C. & Co.” and “ J. L. C.” They are of themselves arbitrary. The writing, of itself, does not purport to be drawn by, or on any person, natural or artificial; and it is an invariable rule, in charging forgery,. that it be shown on the face of the indictment, by proper averments, that the instrument alleged to be forged is of the particular kind prohibited by the statute, upon which the indictment is founded. Starkie’s Crim. Pl. 113; Carberry v. The State, 11 Ohio St. 410.

Thus, where, by the usage of a public office, the bare signature •of a party upon a navy bill operated as a receipt, an indictment for forging such receipt, setting forth the navy bill and indorsement, and charging the defendant with having forged “ a certain receipt for money, to wit, the sum of twenty-five pounds, mentioned and contained in said paper called a navy bill, which forged receipt was as follows, that is to say, ‘ William Thornton, William Hunter,’ ” was held bad, ^because it did not show, by proper averments, that these signatures imported a receipt. Rex v. Hunter, 2 Leach, C. L. 711.

So, where an indictment charged the defendant with forging a receipt signed thus: “ Beceived, H. H.,” it was held that the indictment was bad, because there was nothing to show what “ H. H.” meant. Rex v. Barton, 1 Moody Ch. C. 141.

Judgment reversed.

Hay, C. J., and Welch, Brinkerhoee and Scott, JL, concurred.  