Case ID: ala_55/html/0076-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "STONE, J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hunter v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Illegal Voting.
    
    1. Proof of poll-list. — The poll-list, certified by the inspectors of the election, is the highest and best evidence of the persons who voted at the precinct; but, if it is not certified bytthe inspectors, it is not competent evidence against a person indicted for illegal voting, without extrinsic proof of its authenticity and correctness.
    Feom: tbe Circuit Court of Wilcox.
    Tried before tbe Hon. John 5L Henry.
    Tbe defendant in tbis case, Abram Hunter, alias Abram Campbell, was indicted for illegally voting, “ in said county of Wilcox, at tbe general election held in tbe State of Alabama on tbe first Tuesday after tbe first Monday in November, A. D. 1874, be not having resided in said county three months next preceding said election.” There was no objection to tbe indictment, and tbe trial was bad on issue joined on tbe plea of not guilty. “On tbe trial,” as tbe bill of exceptions states, “ tbe State offered in evidence a paper which purported to be tbe poll-list of tbe voters at tbe box at which the evidence tended to show that tbe defendant bad voted. Tbis paper, before it was offered in evidence, was exhibited to tbe probate judge of said county, who was examined as a witness, and who testified, that said paper was tbe poll-list of Camden beat in said county, of tbe votes cast at tbe general election in 1874, as found by him in tbe said office when be came into office in November, 1874; but it was not proved that there was no other paper in said office, or elsewhere, purporting to be tbe poll-list of said election; and said paper was not signed by any person as inspector of said election, but was signed by the clerk or clerks of tbe election; for which reason, tbe defendant objected to said paper going to tbe jury as evidence; which objection tbe court overruled, and permitted said paper to go to tbe jury as evidence; to which tbe defendant excepted.” Other exceptions were reserved on tbe trial, but they require no special notice.
    Dortch & Howard, for tbe defendant.
    Jno. W. A. Saneord, Attorney-General, for tbe State.
   STONE, J. —

Under section 46 of tbe act “to regulate elections in tbe State of Alabama,” (Pampb. Acts 1872-8, p. 27), it is made tbe duty of tbe inspectors to “ certify tbe poll-list.” If tbe poll-list offered in evidence in tbe present case, bad been so certified, it would have borne on its face tbe evidence of authenticity, and would bave been admissible, as an official act properly certified. Tbe present poll-list, however, wanted tbe certificate of tbe proper officers, and was not self-proving. If its authenticity, and that it was tbe correct poll-list, bad been otherwise shown, it would then bave been proper evidence. Tbe poll-list being tbe highest and best evidence of tbe persons who voted at tbe precinct, it was proper to put it in evidence, unless its destruction or loss was proved.~r-See Wilson v. The State, 52 Ala. 299.

For tbe single error above noticed, tbe judgment of tbe Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause remanded. Let tbe prisoner remain in custody, until discharged by due course of law.