The defendant was convicted of the crime of forgery, and we infer, though the record does not so state, that the case is before us upon exceptions before sentence. The instrument forged is as follows:
THE ZONE OIL 00.,
Cleveland, O.
Order No__________ April 30, 1900.
Ship to A. R. Isham & Sons.
P. O. Address, Butternut.
Shipping Address, Butternut, Mich.
How Ship, Ann Arbor. When, 1 June.
Terms, 90 days.
*384 2 barrels bright red paint. Oil at 57c per gal.
_____“ ______per Wood...........
1-2 half barrels------------------paint 50c
_____ “ ________black roof________
( Containing about ) _____keg ( 20 gallons. j
______gallons------------------------
Extra for Packages.
Half barrels----------50c Kegs.-KOn
5 gal. cans___________50c 10 gal. cans__________75c
The above prices are F. O. B. delivered.
This order is taken with the understanding that it is positive, and not subject to change or countermand, unless so specified thereon. Any agreement not stated on this order will not be recognized.
( Purchaser’s signature) A. R. Isham & Sons.
F. W. Palmer, Salesman.
It is understood that the instrument was made by the defendant, and by him sent to defendant’s employer, the Zone Oil Company, with intent to defraud. The only question discussed in appellant’s brief is whether the instrument described is covered bj^- the statute. Had Isham & Sons made and sent this writing to the Zone Oil Company, it would have been intended and received as an order for the delivery of goods to them. It is, therefore, subject to forgery, within the statute, which punishes the forgery of any order for the delivery of goods. It seems substantially on all fours with the order described in People v. Phillips, 118 Mich. 699 (77 N. W. 245, 74 Am. St. Rep. 436).
The conviction is affirmed.