The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-02
THE ANDERSON CASE.
THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES THE
DEMAND FOR A REMEARING.

THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES THE
DEMAND FOR A REHEARING.
Weighty Opinions and Reasons why the
Returning B0arder should he
Set Free.
Some time after the opening Of the Supreme
Court yesterday morning, Judge Manning
read the following decision, refusing the re-
hearing asked for by Attorney General Og
den:
ton for reheariDg. Opinion by Manning. q. j..
all OF the justices concurring,
The importance of the legal principles In
yolved In this case. and The grave and r-reach-
ing consequences Of an appi alton OF them to
the prosecution Of the defendant have Induced
Us to reconsider the grounds upon which our
ton with which we. examined then on the
hearing. We have given careful attention to
hearing, weighing each branch OF it Ia its turn,
and consulting each authority cited. In ful-
fllment OF our manifest duty. OF which ne re-
ever to intervene between us and the proper
discharge Of our judicial function, we shall
R feet aveei change et ef our ri judgment. i ' = :
. 1t must be observed on the threshold Of this
Inquiry that considerable part Of the printed
tation Of dictum not made by us. Whether
the instrument charged to have been uttered as
forged is or is not public record. susceptible
cord without the clerks certificate it vii be one
with it are questions we not MY did not de-
aaeuass ias ss Sa na was
those portions Of the brief which treat Of the
ple. his the paper charged to b We been al
tered or falsifed is paper which the SUPER
hs the dSnf 50 not ne hssa With o
ing any record public or private. nor for forg-
ing any paper Of any kind whatever That Is
was tried, nor OF which he was convicted
A supplemental brief for rehearing mas also
been presented by the Attorney General. in
OF the cause as one OF the reas ms why he
urges rehearing. and says his references to
made In no o. spirit Of eomplai It % si that action.
and that he Is Informed by The Assistant Attor-
ney General that the day assigned for the argu-
ment may have been iAed BY the court with
Difference to his suggestion made on the day
the cause was first called. Such was the fact.
and aa dg er ha on we
the Assistant Attorney Gene, al was willing to
take it np, and two weeks lacking ene day after
On the day for which it was first set It went
over at the. written, request of the Attorney
General, and it was then that his assistant an
nounced in open court that he had proposed TO
on the following MoDday. We ordered it sci for
time that was needed OF desired. Tue clerk was
instruc ed to give written no ice thereof to both
OF the States counsel, and 1t was done. M fur
and no intimaiion given to US that further time
was desired. On the contrary, We W. re given to
m on
had the assistance OF oral arguments from the
Attorney Genet al and from his assistant. the
time beng extended by the court beyond that
allowed by the iuies, and we also had the bene-
fit of their elaborate printed brief placed before
us at the same time. The first position taken
huf ho ia 1 h lf ubofi io .p1
is matter OF fact for the jury exclusively to fnd
and not matter Of law for the cour to decide
public record is written instrument, made
as a memorial aud evidences OF some' lling WRIT
ten. said or done. vi necessity the forms and
verifcatlopg Of these public instrnmenls arc
prescribed by law. Evidence may be received
to SHOW that paper bearing he form and ap-
pearanee Of q public record was or WAS not IN
tody in public offic+. or the like; but whether
given document POSSESSES tue form and char
acter OF a public record is TO bs determined by
Its conformity TO the stt.tu o directing its
confectioD, If 1t be q ta,utory instrument, or
to The general law, Il IL be an ordinary legal
instrument M and Is from is g natur. a question
eral law or special statute, has presct bed
the form and manner Of mixing public in
verified, the question Of its conformity to the
general or special statute is ne of fact to be
decided by ajury, Is destruc i've OF the distinc-
of law and TACT. and subver-iye of fundamental
principles. Under the operation of such q
70 eode oe or
sance OF an Indictment or information lfor
these are public records) were sun lent under
high nm authority as Chief Justice Parker had
sanctioned such doctrine, and he Is theonIy
iurist cited to support it In the prlnted brief.
we shall give. the identical case cited is shown
TO be j. IN accord M with the well established rule:
NJ III tho nheervation that = ia =. IN ts
question, whether an instr im.Dt is or ~ hot a
public record Is question Ct fact. The sen
dence, but what is or is not a record Is matter
OF evidence; and may be proved like other facts:
ohssswiss ss ,ds there would by no
ia1t IS to be iqdgyd Of BY the court stc..H. ssa.
ing and publishing q forged Instrument 'pur-
oIting TO- be check. will. deed. B0nd or
ertifcaie. is not indictable unless the forged
forms prescribed by law. and it has nowhere o
been m held that the question whether the forged
instrument has or has not the form and quiz
is one OF fact and not Of Law. r.,
Thus. party was indicted for forging q bank
check. The check, on its face was net payable
to bearer, or to the order OF any person named.
Held that the check was inc mplete and could
not defraud anyone. and tha therefore. the
Ga. 535: In an Indictment for forging will. It
appearing that the forged INSTRUMENT had not
the NUMBER OF Witnesses rpQ8trrd Ter a valid
will. conviction cannot be 'sust4ined .
Bishop Criminal Law. section $685. Al
II deed be void on its zee. forgery Of it8s not
ndic able, nor the uttering 1t las forged IL
Tex. 6oa, IL bond .is not reanired by Jaw to
have an attssting witness. aud The name OF one
is falsely subscribed thereto. 1t is noI forgery.
because the presence Or absence OF a Witness
signature does not affscr the validity OF the
dicsment for forging certif.ate of the ae-
knowledgement by one l. OF Il certain mortgage,
when the certificate was by one 4. coniniHsion-
er Of deeds, and u had no venue audthere was
nothing on its face to show OF what count z.
was was eonmissionsE, BI q, was held to be bad Vim
forgery ofan order for s48 is not susfaired bY
an order offered In evidences OF s4a = State vs..
Handy, 2ADb. 81. The speeial object and pur-
of forged instrument to be set oat In the in