In the companion case of Henson v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 829, 183 S.E. 438, a conviction of violation of the "hit and run statute" arising out of the same accident was likewise sustained. See also, Dykeman v. Commonwealth, 201 Va. 807, 113 S.E.2d 867 (sustaining convictions for manslaughter while driving a car and driving the vehicle recklessly); Hundley v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 449, 69 S.E.2d 336 (recklessly driving an automobile and driving the vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants); Miles v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 462, 138 S.E.2d 22 (reckless driving and failing to yield the right of way); Bullock v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 867, 140 S.E.2d 821 (uttering at a particular bank a forged promissory note for the purpose of obtaining the amount of money represented by the note, and obtaining that amount from the bank by means of the note). In Clark v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 490, 496, 115 S.E. 704, it was held that where the defendant was charged in a single-count indictment with breaking and entering a railroad car with intent to commit larceny therein and the commission of the larceny, he might be convicted of either offense but not of both.

In my view, Muhammad may very well be guilty of a criminal offense, but it is not forgery as defined by Virginia common law. See Code Sec. 18.2-178; see Bateman v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 595, 139 S.E.2d 102 (1964); Bullock v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 867, 140 S.E.2d 821, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 927 (1965). For these reasons I dissent, and I would reverse the conviction.