This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1920 Excerpt: ... forgery. The term "forge" was used in the instructions in the same sense in which it is used in the statute, and could not have been misleading to the jury. These instructions might properly have contained a definition of the term "forgery," but, had defendant requested the trial court to so instruct the jury, he could have obtained the benefit thereof. Failing to do so, he cannot be now heard to complain. We have considered other objections made to these instructions, and find that they correctly state the law, when considered with other given instructions. It was clearly pointed out in instructions given for the defense that the intent to defraud must be proven. 10 Complaint is also made of the action of the trial court in refusing certain instructions asked for by the defendant. Defendant's refused instructions 1 to 7 inclusive, were on the subject of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence, and were fully covered by other instructions given. Defendant's refused instructions 8 and 14 were peremptory instructions, and were properly refused by the trial court, as there was evidence tending to show that at the time defendant prepared the draft and signed Lipe's name on the back thereof he intended to defraud either his employer, the bank, or Lipe. It was properly left to the jury to determine whom he intended to defraud. Counsel for defendant argue at great length on the action of the trial court in refusing instruction No. 13. This instruction was properly refused, for the reason that there was no evidence upon which to predicate the same. We have given careful consideration to the instructions in this case, and when the same are read as a series they fairly present the law applicable to the case. The verdict of guilty was amply ...