St. Landry democrat., 1878-04-13

!
signature to the supervisors Tetul
"oulh have made it Il public record, q
whether 1t is not 1t public record with
out such certificate. Our opinion ex
pIcssly presents the decision of tha
question III language designtdly used
But we held that since the statute com
naids that these returns shall be certl
he'd by the clerk of the court, and tn
Instrument offered had not that ceGtlh
cate, 1t was not the public record til'
defendant was charged with uttering al
forged. And here applies with crush
ing force the doctrine universally main
tanned by all the writer's on crimln;,
law, that when statute authorizes o
creates al instrument not known to thu
common law, and prescl ibes its form
ana impresses upon it peculiar features
IN order to decide q prosecution for ut
tei1ng as forged such an instrument, the
paper actually forged or uttered a:
| forged must conform to the statutory
description. And Bishop says this II
true even when the false statutory one
Is 80 like the genuine us to be liable tt
deceive most persons.
1t would be an injustice to infer that
the Attorney General WAS unaware Oi
| THIS provision OF the statute. In the
| Orlet before us ii is said the paper
| prepared by the supervisor Of reglstla
tiun ls Il paper or Il public nature, di-
rectcd to be made by the Legislature
| to be certified by Officers Ut The State
and to be carefully sealed up with the
other papers, and sent to the officers ut
! The State who have duties to perform.
| lhls paper Is evidence that the comniS-
| sl0hers OF election have transmitted to
the supervisors returns as required 10y
| f&t
':lerk) Within a short period has ex-
amined these returns, aud ascertalned
tue result to which he certities." The
clerk had never certified to the one Oh
which this prosecution is based, and no
one else ls required to do it, and SO,
further on it is argued, that the clerk =
ctrtifcilte, although directed by the
law to be appended, is not OF the sub-
stance Ut this document, but mere for
mai matter--a part Of the election ma
cilnery OF the State, and its omission,
while rendering the clerk culpable,
does not destroy the validity Of the
recOrd.' 1t is not our concern to recon-
Gle the admission that the paper is
evidence that the clerk, within Il short
period, has examined the returns, with
the assertion that his certificate to tn.
correctness, and to his ascertainment OF
the result, is Il mere formal matter-ul,
III other words, that it means nothing.
But some of the requirements OF elec-
ton statutes are merely directory, and
being SO, the question is asked how can
1t be held that the absence of tins for
mallty (the clerks certiticate) SO far
changes the substance of this d0cu-
nent as to make it inadmissible in evil
dence under the information. There
Is no question Of a change OF substance
of q document because OF the absence
of q f0rmality, it, indeed, such IL thing
be public, nor is there any question OF
the effect produced upon the result of
al election by the failure to observe
certain directions, as to which the uni
versal rule Of construction il, that cleo
zion statutes are to be construed liberal
~ ansl to favor the right ascertainment
If the vote cast, while criminal statutes
Are, by a rule equally universal, to be
strictly i'll favor of the party
accused. The actual and vital ques.
tion here is, having prosecuted the
prisoner for altering as forged IL parti- |
cuar statutory instrument, has the |
State shown that he did utter as forged |
that instrument? The State has not
shown it. 1t may have shown that the |
prisoner altered as forged another and |
Il different instrument, but the decisions |
Of All courts come down to us in an un-
broken line of authority, that cOnvic-
ton cannot be sustained under such |
charge, supported only by such proof. |
1t is also argued: at is not sufficient
to say that the supervisors return was
not the paper that the members of the
Returning Board We're to principally |
consider, or that it was not the best
evidence. The paper was used, and the
paper was flaudulently altered and
that it might impose upon the
public. The paper was successfully
used. If this was used in connection
With other papers: to produce fraudn-
ent result in their count, and they re-
;urued upon its evidence and forged
t for that purpose, it makes case of
forgery" The prisoner was not prose-
;uted for that crime. He was not
charged with forging that paper, or any
3aper for any purpose. One man may
;orge Il paper and another may utter it
ls forged. The crimes are distinct, the
lcts are distinct. So far from suppos-
ng it WAS sufficient to say that the
return Was the paper that
he returning officers were principally
% consider, or that it was the best evil
lence, We said, as the statute says, it
vas not to be considered at all, and
hat it was not made by the statute any
whatever OF the actual vote
ast, 1t was not the paper nor one OF
he papers which the returning officers
we're to canvass i'm making their compi
alton of the vote. Upon that the di-
ections Of the statute sare explicit.
Whether in the absence or loss of the
onlmissioners' returns it wonld not be
In an election contest as
evidence Of the vote cast.
II even as good as the best evidence, is
matter of inquiry not relevant to the
riminal proceedings. And it must be
riIent that we cannot know as q court,
nd in q case where we nave 5urishic-
ion only OF the legal questions that the
efendant and his co-me,nbers Of the
returning Board did in fact make up
heir compilation from the supervisors
eturn, and successfully used them tO
roduce fraudulent result. That is
latter OF fact wholly outside Of the
ecord, and If it had been in the record
ould not be taken into account by us
D. deciding a naked question of law. J
cannot understand the argument"
Ontinued the Attorney General, that
ronounces nullity an official paper
rlich the statute directs shall be made
nd placed in the hands of public Off =
ers, and being of no value or efficacy,
Jay be- altered, forged and falsihed
'ith impunity.n Nor can we. But an
with the rules governing
liminal prosecutions will enable one
eadlly to understand that when a per-
Dn is charged with uttering rs forged a |
instrument, he cannot be
pnYicted and punished for forging
mother and differa,,t instrument So