Feliciana sentinel. [volume] (St. Francisville, La.) 1877-1892, 1878-03-30

inal in this State, aud sign Qneen victo-
ria's name toit, probably no law officer
would think of chasing it as statuatoly
crime. It would be thing torally with
out force or Che possibility Of effect.
= The Court quotes a California decision
to the effect that forgery cannot be prcdi-
Gated of an instrument which in itself is
natlum, bactuns or incapable of any
effect. Of course, if there is no forgery,
there ia no iuttering Of it. -
Tho Court applies that principle to
the Anderson case in this way: The Re
turning Board must make its compila-
ton and report from the original returns,
aud not from the registers consolidatea
statement. The law does not give par
ticle of authority to the consolidated
statement, nor authorize the Board to ut
ter and publish it OF use it as a basis for
anything. Therefore the original ro-
turns from tho polls have potency and
value. and the consolidated statement
has none therefore the original returns
are susceptible of forgery, and the con-
solidated statement is not.
Ifthis were adopted as final BY the
Court, it would follow that Anderson
apd the Others, even though the; had
knowingly uttered and published the
registers consolidated statement from
Vernon parish, forged or altered, would
not have committed any technical for
gerry or other crime, because they might
just as we'll have manipulated some
newspaper returns. But the Court finds
it unnecessary to decide the point as will
b. seen from the following paragraph
taken from it's opinion:
1t is unnecessary for us to say wheth-
er the consolidated returns of the super
visor uf registration, without the clerk
certificate, is or is not a public record,
susceptible of forgery. 1t is sufficient
to remark .hat the paper offered in evi-
dence is not the instrument the utter
ance of which as forged is charged upon
the defendant.
In what respect the document offered
in evideuce differs from the instrument
referred to in tho amended information
we are not told. The case goes off how
over on this ground-that the instru-
HleHI duesfu ~ u'lSO oIoA oduA APCA Gu "ASA
was not offered in evidence on tho trial
and on tho following ground
1t was not charged in the pleadings
that Anderson had uttered and published
the forged document in all official capac-
ity. while it was no legal oflense unless
done in such capacity. 1t is clear that
if tho editor of the Pieayane or Times had
made up return Of the election from
forged documents, and uttered or pub
lished it, he act would have been entirely
imperative. No legal result would have
followed, no claim to office could have
been based on it, Mr.. Anderson, in his in
dividual capacity, was still less inhuen-
tial than either of those gentlemen
would have been, and it was really
matter Of supreme Indifference to the
public what returns Mr.. Anderson
should choose to publish on his personal
responsibility. 1t was only in his oih-
cial capacity that he conld violate the
law.
Without venturing an opinion OF our own
on the merits of Judgment which is not
vet final we must heartily applaud tho
very dignified and deeply excoriatins re-
buke which it administers to Messrs.
sherman, Mathews and Others for their
Incorporate and impertinent interfcr-
euce in this case.-N. o. Catholic MesseN-
1Cf.