Driggs

Defendant was found guilty under an information charging her with the crime of forgery by willfully, unlawfully, falsely, fraudulently and feloniously making, forging and counterfeiting a certain lease, a copy of which is set forth; and, at a subsequent date, of uttering, publishing and passing as true the same, with full knowledge, etc. Prom the judgment pronounced, and from an order denying a new trial, this appeal is taken.

Defendant offered no evidence and the verdict was based upon that given on behalf of the people. It is insisted that the evidence is insufficient either to establish the forgery in the first instance, or the subsequent utterance. We find competent evidence in the record to the effect that the signature to the lease was not that of Oharnock, the purported lessor; and other evidence—by experts, it is true, but competent— to the effect that, by comparison of the signature to the lease with the admitted handwriting of defendant, employed as exemplars, the defendant attached the forged signature. The notary who made the acknowledgment testified that Oharnock never acknowledged the signature and that his certificate to that effect was false, and that he attached…