The mere making and having possession of a forged instrument do not necessarily show an intent to defraud; such making or possession is evidence, it is true, but it cannot be said that it proves a fraudulent intent.246

239 Smith vs. State, 20 Neb., 284;

Reg. vs. Sherman, 6 Cox, C. C, 312; Elsey vs. State, 47

Ark. 572. 240 State'vs. Mills, 146 Mo., 195;

State vs. Hahn, 38 La., 169. 241 People vs. Caton, 25 Mich., 388;

McGregor vs. State, 16 Ind., 9;

Espalla vs. State, 108 Ala., 38;

State vs. Mills, 146 Mo., 195. 242 Beson vs. State, 124 Ala., 92. 243 Elset vs. State, 47 Ark 572;

Miller vs. State, 51 Ind., 405.

O'Connel vs. State, 55 Ga., 191;

U. S. vs. Carter, 2 Cranch, C. C, 243; People vs. Smith, 103 Cal., 563; Hughes Cr.

Law, Sec. 917.

244 U. S. vs. Mitchell, 1 Baldw. (U. S.), 366; People vs. Caton, 25 Mich., 388; State vs. Williams, 66 Iowa, 573; Leonard vs. State, 29 Ohio St., 408.

245 Anderson vs. State, 20 Tex. App., 598; State vs. Anderson, 30 La., 557. But see 3 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 110, 366; State vs. Red-strake, 39 N. J. L., 365, held not uttering.

246 Fox vs. People, 95 Ill., 76; Kotter vs. People, 150 Ill., 441; Miller vs. State, 51 Ind., 405. But see Williams vs. State, 152 Mo., 115.

Nor is the mere delivery of such an instrument sufficient to constitute forgery, under a statute making it forgery to attempt to pass a forged instrument.247

The mere possession of counterfeit coins or instruments by which made is not an offense at common law.248