The appellant was convicted of forgery, uttering and attempting to obtain money by false pretences, all the charges arising out of the same transaction. He appealed against the convictions for forgery and uttering on the ground that the cheque he had signed, although it was 25 in an assumed name, was not a false document because it was exactly what it purported to be and was no more than a falsehood reduced to writing.
Held:
If a person signs a document in an assumed name for the purpose 30 of perpetrating a fraud the document is false within the meaning of s. 344 (d) (ii) of the Penal Code.
