St. Landry democrat., 1878-04-13

: det.aud anyone, and tila;, ihel.iri,
THE prosecution must fail. w TsiIla:u> -
State, 81 tf;,. 535. Ii IL: iud: Lii,.:-i /.
7 forging will, it appearing Jh,.: III
forget instrument had nut the nNnibt
oi Witnesses required for Il valid sill,
couvictiun c;tnnUt be Sustained. Blsho
Criminal Law, section 50S.
1t Il deed be void Oh It's face, forger
e of it is not iudictable, nor the uttcrin
:, it us forged. IA Text. SOB. 1T Il bond /
: not required by law to ;iart an attestin
/ witness, and the nane III ONE Is falsel
subscribed thereto, ii ia unt turgery, be
] cause the presence or a''Hgnrt. ut Il wit
ness 81 gnature does not .ht.Ci the validlt
OF the bond. State rs. bntrkln, Z lred
2O6. An indictment for forging Il Gel
2 tlticate of the Acknowledgement by on
l l.. OF 4 certain mortgage, when the Ger
tltcate WAS by one X, commissioner q
deeds, ana it had no venue and tiler
: WAS nothing on its face to show OF wl!a
county X. WAS Il commissioner, was helt
: to he bad. Vincent vs.. People,, S Purke
". An indictment for forgery OF al
> order for $4S is not sustained by an or
der offered in evidence OF $40. Stat
:; vs.. Handy, App. 81. The special ob
ject and purpose Of the sale requiring
: SEle telor or purpOrt of Il forged lnstru
! HSN HC w oC SCC but Itl ttC lANlNItiVbAs
that the court ulay judge OF it's cllarac
ter and apply the law to it. Walton vs.
State, 8 Yerg. 81.
ln an indictment for forging. rail
road ticket, expressed ON its face to bt
good for this day only" d description
Of the ticket, as signlfying to the hol.
der that it must be used continuously
aud without stopping at intermediate
stations after once entering the cars is /;
fatal variance, Com. VS.. Ray, Gray
(Mass.) AL. 1t is then manifest thai
the question whether a forged paper
possesses the legal requisites of any ot
the Instruments is one OF law and not
of fact. Authorities of the same tenor
might be multiplied until the mere read
my OF the citations would be tedious.
1t will be sufficient to refer to collatious
OF them in Archibold's Criminal Prac-
tice and L. G.. Waterman's Notes, 534-
563; Haine's u. S. Dig. Grim. Cas-. 1872,
ct seq; Wharton's Grim. Law, sec. 30l,
607.
| We must not omit mention of the case
to which the brief on the part of the
State has especially referred us, in es-
tablishing the doctrine that forgery may
be committed ot any writings of every
description-a general proposition neith
er affirmed nor denied by us, and one
not at all affected by our ruling in this
case, and not the point at issue i'll that.
| The case is the People VS.. Fitch,
Wend. 1913, the syllabus of which WE
how fully aud unqualitiedly it supports
the doctrine elalorately discussed and
approved i'll our first opinion: "Where
an order for the delivery of goods was
accepted and paid, and returned to the
drawer, and the date of it subsequently
altered by him, such alteration held not
to be forgery at common law, although
| manitestly done with a fraudulent in-
tent. To constitute forgery in such
case, the act must have tendency to
ehectuate the intended fraud. An nr-
der satisfied by the delivery of the goods
in the hands ut the drawer, in legal ac-
ceptaflun is nu instrument, An,l al al;
teration OF its date is no false ni,INiny:
Ii Is what 1t purpurts to be-
Il is necessary to state auew "nat
crime the prisoner is Charged With. Ii
ls that OF uJteriug and publishing as true
Il certain altered. forged and cuuuter-
felt public record, to-wit: ttle consol-
dated return OF the parish of Vernon,
made by the supervisor of registration.
1t will also be useful to re-state the
election law QNOdd the two instruments
or records provided for by it. One is
the commissioners return, viz: the re-
turns of each poll i'll thu parish made by
the commissioners who held the elec-
tion at that poll. The other is the con-
solidated returns made 10y the super
visor ut registration OF each parish from
the commissioners returns of all the
polls in the parish, and, rs consolidated,
certified by the clerk OF the district court
to be correct. This last is therefore a
i
have a double yerifcatlon, 10y two diff
are required to verify It from two diff |
ferent sources of information.
Now, in order to ascertain whether a |
certain paper possesses the form and re- |
quisites Of this consolidated Statement |
orr return Ot the supervisor, We must |
first see what form the statute pres |
cr;Les for it,, and what requisites the |
statute says 1t must have, and the de- |
teriiiDatiOn of the question whether the |
paper conforms to the statute, and has |
the form and requisites SGT forth in the |
statute, rests with the court and is |
purely one Of law.
We held that the paper offered as the /
record which bas been uttered as true,
and which comes up t0 us part of one
of the bills of exception, did not con-
form to the description in the statute of
1, consolidated statement OF votes that
it had not the form and verifcatiOn re-
quired by the statute, as 4 paper pur
porting to be will, with only one wit
ness, would not be will tllatthe paper
the clerk of the district court, was not
the paper described and charged in the
and was not what was
known to the law, and described in it as
tue consolidated return or statement of
votes and, therefore, the paper offered
was not receivable ip evidence under
and does not sustain the charge -as laid |
in the information, just as check, deed,
bond or certificate, having the legal
form of such Instruments, would not
sustain the charge Of uttering and pub
lishing as tine q forged check, deed,
bond or certificate.
It is not the commissioner returns
which are to he signed by them alone,
and to be certified by one, that the pris-
Dner was tried for uteering as true.
That was the instrument which he was
charged with uttering as forged, In the
reformation as first drawn, but the State
amended by striking out the descrip-
ion of the instrument and inserting in
is stead the consolidated statement OF
,lle supervisor, Wnlcn Is required ~ Oe
made hy that officer, and to be certified
,y the clerk of the court. The amend
1ient of the information in the present
Ease is of itself an example of an at
;empt to conform to the rule we have
nen elucidatipg and enforcing. When
he document, thus made the basis Of
was offered in evidence it
usned out that it had not the clerks
certificate, and thus lacked one vi the
insignia required by the State, and it