The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-03-23
STATE vs.. THos. c. ANDERSON.
Attorney General Ogden's Application for
RehenrinE Before the
supreme Court,

We give to our readers herewith the full
text Of the brief OF Attorney General Ogden
for a rehearing before the Supreme Court OF
the case of the State vs.. Thos. G. Anderson.
Our readers will remember that in the deci-
sion Of the Supreme Court rendered last Mon
day, declaring Thos. G. Anderson not guilty
and ordering his release from custody, the
court based its Judgment upon two technical
tiles, namely: That the document alleged and
proved to have been forged was not public
document, and that the information did not
charge the offense 20 have been committed by
O public official.
The brief for rehearing filed by the Attor-
ney General is addressed mainly to these
points, and is as follows:
No. 7O72. State of Louisiana vs. J. Madison
Wells ct al.-Applicatiol for rehearing;
clear sense Of duty impsls me to ask at your
which this case has been decided.
The principles Of law involved are Of the
aret hat mnv Of Effort mon NV n a1
should contribute to fix In the jurisprudence OF
the state an erroneous construction In rela ion
prosecution In this particular case will be
readily understood when your Honors reflect
that the real contest here is for the protection
ana but In the UniieI States. Too much has
happened 10 the past few years to shake the
foundations OF our civil freedom. and cannot
but feel an especial anxiety. as q public officer,
that in q case of such interest this court ahould
rest ITS decision upon no princi pie OF law In re-
gard to the soundnes1 OF which there could be
serious question among candid. disinterested
and enlightened jurists throughout the coun-
The record unon which this decision has been
| rendered contains N re than 500 pages Of writ
ten natter. The counsel for the State had
scarcely the time necessary to prepare for SO
INN furf ont hn
by preference with only three days notice.
The argument occurred on Tuesday. and the
decision OF the court was read upon the follow
Errors have crept into this decision no doubt
both from the imDerfection Of the presentation
the period during which the court held the case
under consideration. A conviction that you
will be not only willing but anxious to correct
those errors ii am able to make them ap-
piication.
The constitution gives you an appellate
jurisdiction In criminal cases only upon ques.
fact. Whether a particular document is or Is
not q. record is In every case necessarily 8
question to be settled by. evidence. Take the
on It's face 1t should not appear to be q record.
would not proof that 1t has been offered and re-
ceiyed In evidence In court OF justice make 1t
at once public record and constitute its altara-
plain for discussion? This question is set led
in the able opinion of Chief Justice Parker, of
the Supreme Court Of Massachusetts,. one OF
s HBr ssn 81 W VIZ ana
1st Pickering. 3s5. the. question arose, as to
whether particular instrument which WAS
alleged TO have been forged and altered, was or
arisen here and the court rays:
record 10 conclusive evidence but achat Is
or is not q record is matte, OF Evidence and may