Defendant’s court-appointed counsel brings forward only one assignment of error. Counsel tacitly concedes that to sustain his assignment of error this Court would have to overrule the long-standing doctrine set forth in State v. Welch, 266 N.C. 291, 145 S.E. 2d 902, as follows:

“ . . . ‘[W]hen one is found in the possession of a forged instrument and is endeavoring to obtain money or advances upon it, this raises a presumption that defendant either forged or consented to the forging such instrument, and nothing else appearing the person would be presumed to be guilty.’ ”

*255For the reasons stated by Chief Justice Ruffin in State v. Morgan, 19 N.C. 348, the presumption is sound. The record in this case reveals no prejudicial error.

No error.