Criminal Law—Forgery — Uttering Forged Check—Information.— An information may properly unite the charges that the defendant feloniously forged a cheek with the intent to defraud, and that he uttered and passed the same with intent to defraud, knowing it to he false and forged, and evidence of both or either will sustain a verdict of guilty.

Id. —Pleading of Forgery—Intent to Defraud. — Forgery is a statutory offense, and the intent to defraud is the essential element, and must be specifically alleged in the information, to sustain a judgment of conviction of that offense. It is not sufficient to charge that the defendant did “unlawfully, feloniously, and fraudulently make and forge ” the instrument specified.

Id. — Uttering Forged Instrument—Allegation of Scienter. — To sustain a conviction of uttering and passing a forged check, the information must allege that at the time when the defendant uttered and passed the check he knew the same to he false, altered, forged, or counterfeited; and the allegation that he falsely and knowingly uttered and passed, as genuine, a false and forged check cannot be construed to mean that he knew the check was false and forged at the time he uttered and passed it.

Id. — “Falsely ” Making and Forging. —It is not necessary to allege in the information, specifically, that the defendant “ falsely ” made and forged the instrument, though the statute uses the word “falsely.” The word “ forged ” implies false making to the full extent, as if it were expressed.

Id. — Defective Information — Double Charge—Instruction—Yerdict of Guilty as Charged — Presumption. — Where an information contains the double charge of forgery of a check and of uttering and passing the forged check, and either of these two elements of the offense is defectively pleaded, if the court instructs the jury that they may find the defendant guilty under either branch of the charge, and the jury find the defendant guilty as charged in the information, it cannot he presumed, in support of the judgment, that the verdict was not based upon the void part of the information.

Id.—Insufficiency of Evidence—Testimony of Expert—Comparison of 'Handwriting — Face of Check — Signature. — Where the only evidence to sustain a charge of forgery of a check is the testimony of an expert, upon comparison of the check with genuine handwriting of the defendant, that in his opinion the face of the check was written by the defendant, nothing being said specifically about the signature, and there being no evidence as to the existence of the purported drawer, or whether he did or did not authorize the signature, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.