
    A. J. Revels, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.
    
    1. In treating an assignment of error based, upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, an appellate court will consider only such grounds of the motion as are argued before it.
    2. In a prosecution for uttering a forged instrument, it is not required in order to warrant a conviction, that the evidence establish that injury should have resulted to any one therefrom ; the intent to defraud is the essence of the crime.
    This case was decided by Division A.
    Writ of error to the Criminal Court of Becord for Suwannee County.
    The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      L. E. Roberson, for Plaintiff in Error;
    
      Parle Trammell, Attorney General, for the State.
   Shackleford, J.

— The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of uttering a forged instrument, and seeks relief here by writ of error. The only assignment argued is the one based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and the only grounds of such motion insisted upon are those which question the sufficiency of the evi-i dence to support the verdict. We confine ourselves to the consideration of the grounds argued. Johnson v. State, 55 Fla. 41, 46 South. Rep. 174.

It would be a profitless task to attempt to set out the evidence or even to give a synopsis of it. It is sufficient to say that we have given the- same a careful examination, and are of the opinion that it is amply sufficient to support the verdict. In fact, the plaintiff in error prác tically admits in his own testimony that he uttered a forged instrument, but it is contended that, since no one was actually defrauded thereby, the elements of the crime charged were not proven, therefore the conviction was not warranted. This contention is untenable. Hawkins v. State, 28 Fla. 363, 9 South. Rep. 652. Also see King v. State, 43 Fla. 211, 31 South. Rep. 254.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur;

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.  