
    J. R. LEE, IN ERROR, v. THE STATE.
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1877.
    1. CEIMINAL LAW. Bill of exceptions to make charge and evidence part of the record.
    Where the charge of the court and the evidence in the case are not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions, no errors can be assigned as. to- these in the supreme court. [See notes 3-5, 11 under sec. 4693 of the Code.]
    2. SAME. Indictment for forgery. Two offenses not charged, when.
    Where the indictment for the forgery of an appeal bond charges that the defendant made, or caused to be made, the said bond, etc., there is but one offense charged, for in either event the defendant would be ^the author of the bond. [See Code, sec. 6596, and notes.]
    3. SAME. Same. Same. Instrument designated by two names and set out, no objection.
    Where the indictment for forgery charges that the instrument forged was “a prosecution or an appeal bond, or bond for prosecution of an appeal,” it but designates the instrument by two different names, and where it is set out in full in the indictment, the character of the instrument thus named is clearly shown. [See note 11 under see. 6596 of the Code.]
    4. SAME. Conclusion of indictment; last count cures defect in first.
    Where there are two counts in an indictment, the first of which concludes “against the dignity of the state,” and the second “against the peace and dignity 6f the state,” the conclusion to the last count is to the whole indictment, and cures the defect in the first, although the lower court, without any necessity seen by the supreme court, compelled the state to try on the first count. [See Con., art. 6, sec. 12, and note 3.]
    .5. SAME. Forgery. Misdated appeal bond subject of.
    Where an appeal bond dated the- first day of March, 1876, should have been dated the first day of May, 1876, it is not void for such clerical error in misdating it; and the forgery of such a bond subjects the forger to the penalties of the crime of forg-ery. [See Code, sec. 1095, and note 3 under sec. 6596.]
    6. SAME. Eo-rg-ery. Indictment to allege intent to defraud some one.
    In an indictment for forg-ery, it is sufficient to aver that the instrument was made with intent to defraud some person, such intention to be made out by the evidence on the trial. -[Resulting injury to be expressly stated by special averments where it does not appear on the face of the false instrument that the rights of another may be prejudiced. State v. Martin, 9 Hum., 54, 64, 65; State v. Ward, 7 Bax., 76, 79.]
    Cited with approval: Snell v. State, 2 Hum., 349.
    Appeal from the circuit court of Claiborne county.
   ICreemak, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Lee was indicted for forging an. appeal bond,, on an appeal from the judgment of three justices of the peace in an action of forcible entry and detainer.

The charge of the court and evidence in the case are not in the record in a bill of exceptions, so- that no error could be assigned in these. Several objections ¿re presented to the indictment, which we will notice so far as deemed -material to be considered:

1. It is said the indictment charged two distinct offenses —that is, that the defendant made, or caused to be- made, the bond, etc. There is nothing in this. In either event he would be the author of the bond, and would amount at most to a repetition of the same charge-.

2. The indictment says it was a prosecution, or an appeal bond, or bond for prosecution of an appeal. It is but designating the instrument by two different names. The character of the instrument thus named is clearly shown by its being set out in full in the indictment.

8. It is said the count on which defendant was tried, does not conclude “against- the peace and dignity of the state.” It appears only “against the dignity of the state” in the record. The state was compelled, it is true-, to try on the first count of the indictment, by the court, the necessity for which we do not clearly see. It is therefore contended, the conclusion to the second count, which is proper, cannot aid the first. We think the conclusion to that count was to the whole indictment, and covers the defect in the first.

4. It is said the instrument could not have been used for the purpose of the appeal, because the indictment shows that the suit was tried on the 1st day of May, 1876, and the bond is dated first day of March, 1876, two months before the trial. This is probably a clerical error, but if the bond was thus misdated by the forger, it would not vary ’the result, as such a bond, if genuine, would not be void, but the court would disregard -the date, as- a mistake, and give judgment on it. It is sufficient to -aver the instrument was made with intent to defraud some person, such intention to be made out by the evidence on the trial. Snell v. State, 2 Hum., 349.

Affirm, and dismiss writ of error.  