The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-02
THE ANDvnsoN CASE.


one not al Vii affected by our ruling la this case,
and not the. polnt at issue In tat, az,
the o. llabus OF which we trahscribe entire, that
II may be 4 en how fully and GEOGRAPHICALLY i
snnpots, he aosas wbs sess 90 sr @c
and re,urned e the 1rawger, ana the dnts g IT.
subsequently altered by him. such altsratio,
ma,,ifest y done d. With fraudulent ioient TO
con ,itu,e forgery In such cas-. re aot mist
fraud An ord, r satisfied by he delivery Of the
goods In tho hands Of the drawer, n leg nc
retta ion Ia no instrument. and an alterh lon OF
liz uate L. 40 false making IL Is what IL pof-
Ii is necessary to staie anew what crime the
prisoner y charged WIN, u y 'a aa % ,erga
solida cd return of the Parish Of Vernon
viii also be- useful to rsstate ths cleo Ion law
guoad the two Instruments or records provide
Tor by u. One Ia the. com missluner's return,
by the commissioners who held the election ut
That poll. The other ia consolidated returns
made by the supervisor on rea,sEraon o. faa
certified By the clerk II the district court to be
,eeord required BY law to have double verI9 1.,
cation, by two different officers, who ore able
and who are required to verify II from TWO dii-
iprent sources of Information. ,.-.,,
Now. In order to ascertain whether certain
raper possessee the form and requisites Of this
consolidated statement orr return Ct the su-
perysor, we must frat see what form the statute
prescfibes for II, aud wnat requisites ne sta-
tue says 1t must haye and the 1eterminat'on
a nas ana Sa hs form orr p aud o set
forth In the attn nte. tests with the court ana ID
purely one OF law. .....,
which has been uttered az true. and which
cotn,s up IT, us part Of one Of tho bills OF ex-
cspti H. did NOT conform e. the deaaription IN
yerinsatian reuurei BY the statute. MS apaper
prtnf TO b. WIZ s W hs on nss eno nr wnsds
not having the certificate of the clerk
Of the distric, court. was not the .pnper
lion. an was not what was known TO the
| law and described In II IA the consolidated re-.
turn or statement OF votes and, therefore. tbe
| papsr offered was not receivable In evidence
under and does not sustain tho charge ss 'ati
in the information. Just as . check deed. hono
certificate hayns tn9 ega' t 1o, %, s w.
| t, Rug and publishing rs true forged check,
deed, bond or certificate. ..,...-,,..,
It is not the. commissioners returns which
are to be signed by them alone. and to be eeti-
| fed BY no one that the prisoner WIS tried for
uttrrlng as true That was s,'h tho asin~en s
| forged in the information M first drawn.
but The state amended by striking
@"a ,ss in s tend The eo"sodasd state
| ment Of the supervisor. which Is required to BIO
made by that Iicer, End to be certified by the
formation In the present. case Ia Of tlsslf M ak
ample of an attempt to conform to The rule we
have been calculating aud enforcing. when
tho document thus made tho basis of proseru-
tion. ". offered In evidence 1t turned out that
ii had not the clerks certificate and thus lacked
one OF the INSIGNIA r.aulran ~ tne nta ., nm q,
offered WIS or was not n public record.
1t In enough and /, is conclusive. II The instrn.
ment Offer oil Is not the s!aq DRY instrument
abary,d And hence we said b fore, II IL not
necessary to decide whether the inHtrumaili
charged IL or IL not public record susceptible
| of forgery Tho instrument offered to fupp0tl
the charge Ia not the instrument described In
tho statute. The statute desc ibes paper
which shall have the sunervlsorsa ssnat.Tp ,t
pn per offered In evidence has tho former and
has no. the latter l. Is entirely, bfeide ou'
present inquiry whether tho s SKI y n 4
n public record, or whether It Is not public
record without such certificate Our oiiniot
lexpressly presents the deeis lion OF that question
In language designedly used. But We held ihh
since the statute commands INIT these ietnrnt
shall DO certified ny TIP CLERK q Inc o.nf an.
il WINS not the public record the defendant WA
charged with tutoring as forged And bore
WIN by Fl the Wrtars on
law that when statute authorizes or creates
an instrument not known to the common ivy
and ,,rescrtb.a its form and impressea upon Il
naculipr features In order 10 decide u pr secu
t,on Tor tutoring IA forged such III Instrument
the puper n tualiy forged or uttered ~ Forged
. | must conform to the statutory dese iptlon. Ant
| Eiahup SAYS this IL true even Whom tho fhs'
| statutory one Ia 80 like the genuine rs to b'
II b,e to decisive most per onB.
| twould be mn injustic to infer that the At
torn. General was unaware Of this provision
of the statute. In the brief before us It ls Aait
tho pager preuared by the supervisor Of reg
ittration Ia q paper of public nature. directed
tn be mads b, the Legislature. to bs certified bJ
officers OF the State. and to pc caref lily ssalet
up with the other .apsrs ana sem TO mo otgs ,
, paper is evidence that tho commissioners o
election have transmitted to the supervisor
the ofJ,csr 1.-THE erkl within a short pe Tod hai
ex1 mined these returns, and asscertained th
. result to whtoh he ceitifies.. me CLERK hat
never certified, to he one on which this prose
cnti0n is based. and no one, else II r.ani'e cd t.
, do Il, and 80, further ON II is argued. that TIN
clerks certce although retd 10y the s t LAY
The eleaiion machinery Of the state. and u
omission While ma ine Ge abe
. n il not our concern to reconcile the admission
, that the paper is evidence that tbe clerk. With,
the assertion that his certificate to the correct
ness and to bis ascertainment Of the result, i
t a mere formal matter-or. In other words. tina
ments OF election statutes are merely, directory
and being 90 The question L. sh asked how can M
held that the absence 81 ,ns h n
t Of this document as to make It Inadms
sible in evidence under the Information; Their
ia no question Of n change Of substanc
!. Of a document, because Of The absence OF
Formally, If, indeed. such atbing be public. no
ia there any question of the effect produces
upon the result Of an election by TIE failure =
yersal rule Of construction s. that election 8 at
utes are to be construed librrally and to fnvo
. the right ascertanment Of the vote cast. Will
criminal statutes are. by rule equally unlver
SAL to be construed stiictly IN favor 81 the part
accused The actual and vital question here IL
having prosecuted the prisoner for altering a
Z forged particular statutory instrument. ha
the State shown that he did utter as forged tha
{ instrument? he State has not shown it,.
r may have shown that the isoner altered a
r fore. another AMI a different instrument bu
the decision- of all courts come down to us /
an unbrOken line OF authority, that convic
,, ton cannot be. sustained under such charge
1T Is not sufficient to say that the supervisor
: the Returning Board were to principally con
slider. or that 1t was not the best evidence; Tn
parer was used, and the paper was fraud llent
Q y altered and falsifled, that it might impo7
y used. II This was used in conneeiiol
with other papers to produce frauduen
s. md fhau tI1r pah