The People's vindicator. [volume] (Natchitoches, La.) 1874-1883, 1878-04-06
In the Anderson Case.
TEXT OF THE REFUSAL FOR REHEAR

In the Anderson Case.
TEXT OF THE REFUSAL FOR REHEARING
The following are extracts of the
decision of Supreme Court in Ander'
sons case: 1T must be observed on
the threshold of this inquiry that a
considerable part of the printed argu-
ment for rehearing is directed to the
refutation of a dictum not made by
US. Whether the instrument charged
to have been uttered as forged is or is
not public record susceptible of for
gerry, or whether, not being a public
record without the clerks certificate,
! it will be one, with it are questions
we not only did not decide, but ex-
pressly and in equivocal language an
nouDced that it was unnecessary in
this case for US to decide. So too, of
these portions of the brief which treat
of the crime charged as being a for
gerry, as for example, this, the paper,
charged to have been altered or falsi-
fed, is a paper which the supervisor,
etc., thought to be superAuous. TO
say that the defendant was not char
ged with forging any document, pub
lie or private, nor of forging any pa
per of any kind whatever, that is not
the crime for the preparation of which
he was tried, nor of which he was
convicted. It Is necessary to state
anew what crime the prisoner is char.
ged with. 1t is that of altering and
publishing as true certain altered,
forged and counterfeit public record,
to.wit: The consolidated returns of
votes of the parish of Vernon made by
the supervisor of registration. 1t
will also be useful to restate the elec-
ton law quoting the two instruments
of record provided for by it. One is
the commissioners returns of each
poll in the parish made by the CON-
missioners who held the election at
that poll. The other is the consolida.
| ted returns made by the supervisor of
registration of each parish from the
commissioners returns of all the polls
| ia the parish, and as consolidated GER
tilted to by the clerk of the district
court to be correct. This last, is
therefore, q document of record re-
qnired by law to have double verif-
cation by two officials who are able
and who are required to verify it from
two different sources of information.
Now in order to ascertain whether
certain paper possesses the form and
requisites of this consolidated state.
ment or returns of the supervisor, We
must first see what form the statute
prescribes for it, and what requisite
the statutes says it must have, and
the determination of the question
whether the paper conforms to the
statute, and whether the form and re-
quisites set forth in the statute, rests
with the court, and is purely one of
law. We held that the paper offered
as the record which has been uttered
as true, and which comes to US part of
one of the bills of exception, did not
conform to the description in the stat
ute of consolidated statement of
votes; that it had not the form and
verifcation required By the statute as
a paper purporting to be a will with
only one witness would not be will;
that the paper produced not having
the certificate of the clerk of the dis
trict court, was not the paper desert
bed and charged in the information,
and was not what was known to the
law aud described in it as the CONSOLE
dated returns or statement of votes,
and therefore the paper offered was
not receivable 10 evidence and does
not sustain the charge laid in the 10.
formation, just as check, deed, bond
or certificate not having the legal
form of such instruments would not
sustain charge of uttering and pub
l:.L:-o 80. r-o-l -Io~h, doou,
bond or certificate. 1t is not the COM
missioners returns which are to be
signed by them alone and to be certi-
fed by no one, that the prisoner was
tried for uttering as true the instru-
ment which lie was charged with ut.
teriDg as forged in the information as
first drawn, but the state amended BY
striking out the description of that
instrument aud inserting in its stead
the consolidated statement of the su.
pervisor which is required to be made
by that officer and to be certified BY
the clerk of the court. The amend
ment of the information in the pres
ent case is Of itself an example of an |
attempt to conform to the rule we
have been calculating and forcing
When the document thus made was
offered in evidence it turned ont 1t |
had not the clerks certificate and thus |
lacked one Of the insignia required by |
the state and it does not matter whe-
Their the document as thus offered was
or was not a public record"
The opinion Of the court was unan-
imous.
Disur0cnd.