An instrument absolutely void on its face which could work no injury to any one cannot be made the subject of forgery, if genuine.231

Also if an instrument is so imperfect and so incomplete that no one could be defrauded by it, it cannot be the basis of forgery.232

An instrument not signed by any one creates no obligation; it is merely a blank paper and not the subject of forgery.233

The passing of a genuine bank bill of a bank of another state which has no legal value in Illinois and purports to have none is not a violation of the statute of Illinois defining forgery.234

A certificate issued by a clerk of a court certifying that a juror had attended court a certain number of days, entitling him to payment for such attendance, not being authorized by law, is void and therefore not the subject of forgery.235

Trade marks and labels are not the subject of forgery at common law.236

But an instrument apparently void on its face, may still be made the basis of forgery by the averment of extrinsic facts.237

Thus an instrument which from its words and figures seem to be unintelligible, as "Due 8, 25 Askew Brother," may be made the basis of forgery by the averment in the indictment of such extrinsic facts as will make it intelligible.238

231 Roode vs. State, 5 Neb., 174;

State vs. Young, 46 N. H., 266;

3 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 103. 232 People vs. Galloway, 17 Wend.

(N. Y.), 540; Williams vs.

State, 51 Ga., 535. 233 U. S. vs. Sprague, 48 Fed., 828. 234 Gutchins vs. People, 21 Ill., 641. 235 Fer. vs. Delana, 3 Okla., 573.

236 White vs. Wagar, 185 Ill., 195, 204. 237 Lee vs. State (Ala.), 23 So., 669;

Powers vs. State, 87 Ind., 97;

Baysinger vs. State, 77 Ala., 63; U. S. vs. Shellmire, 1

Bald. (U. S.), 370; Rex. vs.

Ward, 2 Easr., D. C, 861. 238 Cembert vs. State, 53 Ala., 467;

Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 945.