The Union and journal., 1869-10-01

oath but Is IL unreasOnable 10 require, tnss 70
tive distinct and eefan than the statement. Of this
witness In all the cases cited tho proof by oral
testimony WAS positive and undoubung. IN ono
case II was the certiAcate OF the magifnte; can
not escape notice that the witness sPeah absolutely
and unqualiAedly 70 the nct that the oath Wa ID.
minstered TO the clerk pro tsm, and a. TO the per.
son who administered IL. We do not however deem
IL necessary finally 10 determine this point at this
stage OF the case for reasons that Will appear In the
conclusion 10 which We have come ~ to he present
disposition Of the oase.
Tho nsI, objection relates to the warrant and re-
original warrant and return, and i s made part Of
the case BY themselves and 10 therefore properly bc
fore us. The constable whose namo appears as the
slgner Of the return was called by the deiendsnts
the warrant Is not my handwriting. IL was written
by my direction and In my presence oy Abner 4.
Libby. ono OF the .slsctmen. wa. Standing Sesids
turn amer no read tho return, which no wrote"
This presents the question whether public officer
can authorize another TO put his name to an Official
him. IL may be admitted that private person
when acting In his own business, may bind himself
by signature which he directs another TO make for
him. But the law generally means BY signature,
the writing by man OF his own namo or by actual
iy making his mark. Tho distinction between the
signature binding individuals when made by anoth.
or and those made by public officers In their Official
capacity is clearly set forth by the statute entitled
y
Sect Il Is provided that the following rules are to
be observed in the construction OF statutes, unless
such construction Is inconsistent with the plain
meaning Of the enactment. The Is rule Is this; (;
"When the signature Of person is required As
must write IL or mako his mark" viii be obeery-
Ell this s not general rule applicable to contracts
or instruments between private persons, except
very maniestly intended TO reach the cases OF pub
lie ofcers-requircd by the statute to sign official
documents-and 10 do away with any possible con-
=. tra mi ho
The statute ichap J, 81, II. 81 requires that, "tho
person who notifies the meeting shall make his re.
turn on the warrant stating as ornoSs
preliminary TO legal meeting. II the legal evi.
dence that Il has been called according TO law It's
conclusive upon the rights Of all. II therefore be.
@ and COZ
rectness. II requires no argument To show that u
was never in the contemplation OF the Lawmakers
that official certificates or returns which the law re-
ed by attorney or agent that they could haveany
legal validity unless signed by the officer 30 that
they should bear his own handwriting:
There may be cases unquestl0nably where the
signature is made by third person at the request OF
the officer In good faith and with honest intentions
by all the parties, and this Is without question one
OF such cases. But II We sanction this mode OF au.
thentication In such case we establish doctrine
which will be far reachingin Its effects. ii would
reach 10 all cases where any public Ofcers requr-
cd TO sign any instrument or certificate. The clerk
q Court might sign wr, executions and rscSd'
perhaps o transient person, when no one else was
present, TO write the sherifrs name TO return OF
levy. The Goyernor OF tho State might thus sign
death.warrant. lfthis action by deputy was sane
toned II would offer temptation to many officers to
avoid all liability for their official or neg.
lects, or mistakes, by taking care to hayo third
party write his name TO his return or certificate and
taking care to have the proof that 1t was done by his
direction difficult II not Impossible. denial OF his
signature would DO his defence. Ii is well known
that the President Of tho United States has Sccro
tary who Is authorized 10 sign tho name OF the Pros
ident 10 land warrants. But this Is permitted by
special law, and tho fact that such law w required
before tho President could be relieved from the
roboratxc OF tho general doctrine that all public Of
cers must sign their own names 70 their own returns
and certificates Of official acts.
This Is not case whero the officer purports TO act
by deputy and the fact appears on his properly
signed return. In like this there Is no indica-
tion or intimation that third party has anything
TO do with the return or the signature. II the sig
A. b., constable by q. d., could II have been re-
garded legal return answering tho requirements
Of the statute.
We find the case Of Richardson V. Batchclder, 10
Maine Rep. 81, In which II was decided that where
the signature OF Justice Of the Peace 10 writ was
in his own handwriting but on n slip OF paper that
was affixed to the writ and the justice adopted and
recognized II when the case was before him the sg
nature was held sufficient In that case. IL will bc
observed that the signature was genuine-that no
injury could result as from forgery-and that tho
writ must bo brought before the Justice and he
could determine whether TO adopt II or not-and all
parties interested could Avail themselves OF any OBJ
lection 10 the irregularity. The case OF Achom v.
Mathews, 3S Nialne l73, was one whero tho sigma
ture Of the magistrate was not written by himself
but adopted. Tho court below recognized II and do
termincd that II was sufficient.
This court only determined, after stating the
question: that 1t was simply tho exercise OF discre-
ton in the court below, TO which no exceptions
the point in question true that the court feels
justified in sustaining the acts OF towns and town
officers by liberal construction OF the law, and al
WAYS inclines toward n favorable view or their do
ings where mere matters OF form are In question.
hut this defect seems to us something moro than
form. A town meeting is not legal one unless due
.'of the person who notifies the meeting" and 10
whom tho warrant was directed. Tho return must
be made by him under his own hand, 50 that 10
cannot think that Il would be safe or legal TO admit
the doctrine that the signature may be made by q
third party on verbal directions by the officer We
think this should be understood by oil public OIL
GERS. -,
The case Is before us on report and we are at lib
erty TO givo IL such direction rs right and Justice
may require. We are not satisfied that tho officer
cannot now sign the retnrn with ms own hana ~ INC
We therefore discharge this report and remit the
case TO the Court at N' with liberty to either
party To move any amendment OI inc TecOrus OF pa
pers or TO furnish proof as to the qualfca-
ton Of the moderator or osuppy any defect In the
records or proof rcscrvng the determination OF the
legality or effect Of such matters as In other like Ca
scs. Report discharged.
No. 90. Chadbourn VS.. Meservc. Verdict for
Defendant. S99.72. Nealley and Klmball for
plff Yeaton and 0akes for def.
No 1877. Barry VS.. Stevens. Jury dis
agreed Burbank for plf; Drew and Moore
for def.
No. 200. Morrow VS.. Thing. Verdict for
plaintiff. $50. Drew Cor plf; Clifford for dcft.
No. 3Sl. Emilus J.. Getchell VS.. Edmund
Earl. Verdict for plaintiff, s26.l0. Hobbs for
plff Drew for def.
No. AT. Bryant VS.. GilpatriSk. Taken
from the jury after the evidence WAS out and ro-
ported to Law Court.
No. 1l9. Mason vs.. Abbott ;eutcrcd "ncither
party"
At the opening Of the court Moses Emery, esq.
the death Of our lamcnted brother,
Hon. Phillip Eastman, and brief eulosies were
pronounced by Messrs. Emery, Kimball, Drew,
and Judge Barrows, and letter from Judge |
Bourne, who was unable to be present, COM
of the character and virtues of the |
deceased, was read. Resolutions of respect to |
the memory Of Mr.. Eastman were ordered to
be entered upon the court records, by Judge |
Dsrrows.