The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-03-23
be PROVED like other facts; other,otse there mould


means by which they we're to reach conclusion
upon this point. ,1as the sole matter for reuie,o in
this court. II the charge upon that point was
beyond your roach, because It necessarily em-
braces an inquiry into the facts connected with
s 81 ibis coa bs
rea he'd The combustion that this raper was a
face but from the proof Of several witnesses.
that this particular document had been receiy, d
by the board of returning officers rs record.
and finally carried into their. eompila ions as
such, and made: with other documents of The
same kind, the basis OF that gigantic fraud by
try was husbe'i. and the will of four men en-
thrn1d At Washlngton Il d2cnment IT., for,
It is useltss to say that tho forgery OF these
c,onsoli dated statements could cause. no injury.
That forgery did cause great and irreparable
injury. It not only deprived individuals of
rights. hut 1t acu lily overthrow government
whicn had boon elected by the people. All this
court, heCau p. under the constitution, you can
not notice any matter of faet in u criminal case
And from I'll this IL plainly appears that tits
court ought not to have interfered vii TIL find
ing The Jury upon this point.
Bur assuming, FIR argument sake, that the
court ,1, ma right TO pass upon this question
The stature Is, that any person who sh I'll utter
and ubllsh as true my false. nltsl cd forged or
eoune, fsteed record with intent to de raud any
The TAPER charged to have been altered or
fasined is paper which the supervisor of
rs.gistr ton Of every palis IL required to make
charged to receive from the commssi ners OF
cleo ion Mt the different polling places their eer-
tif"ates and returns. He Is required to examn Inc
these papers an report the results of the cleo
ton In the parish ut large. in what il termed n
eons 2, statement II he net. The returns
auirad to send to the Returning Board I The
tAct hat this consolidated statement has been
altered and falsilled BY the defendant has been
ton is whether this raper comes within the
pu, view and scope OF the statute7
At the common. law, forgery cor sisted of the
ether. the purpose being to give TO the writing
IN operation which. In truth. 1t ought not 10
have. At the common law the counterfeiting
or altering OF any authentic matter ri n public
nature was forgery, because all public matter
wh1Gh the law requires TO be authenticated. If
1asihed or ds t Is per
wealth. Tho instances put Of such papers are
cert frates OF holy orders. etc. late case de-
cides that forged letter Of recommendation for
service o. u 5choomaster is punishable under
The law. Regina vs.. schorman, "a l.. and @. Y.
The paper prepared by the supervisor Of
registration Is n paper OF q public nature-d-
:. nted to be- made by the Legislature-to be GER
TIN d by fiji ,ers Of the State and to be carefully
snaled up with other Dhpers and sent to other
othcers OF tt 9 Slate who have duties to perform.
This paper II evidence that the commissioners
Of ee ton have ran 81 t. the anpervsor
this officer within q short period has examined
these returns and ascer'ained the resul 8 to
which , certilles lfby any traud or acc dent The
check. and here Is furnished some evidence Of
the fact Any variance in this statement from
TIA. Wh zen the Rstn ming Board might make
betore he court illustrates he value of such a
popsr TIE memters Of The returning Board
- N
forged and fatsifed he supervisor statement
| cannot understand the argument that pro
stntute directs shall be made and placed in the
hands of public officers and being Of no value
or etfIcaey may BE- , altered, forced and falsaed
in any contest for office, among the catn-
didates in Vernon Parish. 1t might. with other
evidence, overthrow the certifica es OF the Re-
turning Board in favor Of n candidate improp-
Derry returned or returned upon The forged or
fai filed certificates. Neither tho returns by
Inc nor the snpsrvsor nor the
testapt may go back to the ballots of the elect
ors; But policy has dictated that in the process
pendent action Of the commissioners. super
ysors and Returning Board. and the argument
that denies validity or value to the acts of either
1t: 1t is impossible to admit that IL the forgery
q CERTIFICATES by the eommissloners OF cleo
crime under the statute. or IL the falsiff eati0n
or forgery OF the returns or figures Of the Re-
turning Board be a crime, that the forgery and
statement and r, port {, harmless I or innocent.
They are separate auu distinct acts In the course
OF proceedings all tending to the same result
all of these are under authority, and each has
some authority. ! he statute requires their acts
to be manifested by. official statements, and
that they have this character establishes that
any forgery, Justification or counterfeiting
would be crime.
nv, 10, 81 r. Itakrf oko t..
only, prepared with the assistance Of great
number Of persons. There. are citation,
pettion, plea Operations, trial: Judgment,
authentic evidences in tue progress OF the cause
would be the forgery OF q record. OF writ.
Commonwealth vs. Mycall. Mass. 1876. q the
Pleas, chapter 20. SECTIONS and 3. OF a.deposi-
ton. State vs.. Kemball. so Maine. 400. OF feri
faGias. Chitty Or L. lo44. "
The court In such cases infer fraud from the
nature OF the act done.
There are q great number Of cases In which
the forgery OF papers Is held TO be fraudulent.
when it was quite impossible that damage
could result except In respect TO unWary per-
sons. The forgery of willis for persons VINO
have not had existenseM,hea acceptance Of drafts
the kana Si 2vaf1 qGs and od E. $685. g
ma VI. Rogers. ibid. 629.
Whether such papers were or how, they
contained by the extrinsic circumstances. 1t is
not sufficient to say that the Supervisors return
was not the paper that the members Of The Re-
turning Board were to principally consider, or
that it was not the best evidence. But the paper
was used, and the paper was frauduiently al
tered and falslfled that it might impose upon
the public. The paper was successfully used.
Ii this was used in connection with other papers
to produce a fraudulent result in tn, tr count,
and they returned upon It's evidence and forged
it for that purpose. it makes case OF forgery.
From the time Of the decision in Wards
case" Ito be found In Lord Kaymond's Reports.
page l46D the rule was established that. at com
mon law, writings Of euerU Descriptions ,ohether
of public or private nature. achetlse7 ,1ritten
printed sohethe1' of record usder seal. or by
parole, and Whetller invested Nth LEGAL CHAR,
AcTER or not-are equally sutjrcts OF forgery.
being equally within the deauition and nil
chief OF the crime. See Buns Just, tit Forg-
cry Forgery defined by Savage, Oh j., in The
People W. Fitch. Wend. Rep. 1884, I'd volume
Archbold Criminal Prac Ice and Pleading, page
1913 edition OF 1861
The question of fraudulent intent was pro-
per question for the jury. United States VI.
Wilcox. 4lh Blatch Q. @. as5. cannot we'll un-
defstand the position OF the court Ii you hal
decided that the statute referred only to the for