St. Landry democrat., 1878-04-13
The Anderson Case.
HE SUPREME COURT REFUSES THE De
MAND FOR A. REHEARING.
WE1GHTy OPINIONS AND REASONS WHY
THE RETURNING BOARDER SHOULD
BE SET FREE.

/ Judge Manning Fedu tiiS LofiONlNg Ut
cisioi.. refusing the rehearing asked fo
by Attorney General Ogden:
State VS.. Thomas c. Anderson-O
applicafion for rel,earing. Opinion b
Manning, C.. j., all of the Justices con
curing.
The importance of the legal principle
involved in this case, and the grave an
far-rtaching consequences of All appli
cation of them to the prosecution of til
defendant, have induced us to recon
slider the grounds upon which our decis
ion is based with the same circum
sDection with which we examined ttiel
on the hearing. We have given care
ful attention to- the argument of tn
Attorney General fora rehearing. weigh
inr each branch Of it in its turn, aut
consulting each authority cited. In full
fillmen, OF our manifest duty, of which
he reminds lis, tn permit no consiuera
lions whatever II, intervene between
us and the propeZ discharge of our judi
cial fraction, We shall proceed to review
th.. r,.#~uuS otfe 1el US to effect Il changs
Of oar Judgments
/ II mast i,e observed on the threshOl(
! uG ans inquiry that q considerable par
! ~ the printed arsume Mt for rehearins
s directed to the refutatiOn of dictun
ment charged to have been uttered as
forged is or is not public record, sus.
ceptibic of forgery, or whether, not
being u public record without the
clerks certificate, it will be one with
it are questions We not only did
uos decide, bnt expressly and in un-
euuivocal language announced that it
was unnecessary in this case tor us 20
decide. So, too, of those portions of the
brief which treat of the crime charged
as being forgery Gas, for example, this,
''the paper charged to have been al
tered or falsitied is 4 paper which the
SUPERVISOR" etc., it ought to be super
fuous to say that tie defendant was not
charged with forging any record, public
or private, nor for forging any paper of
any kind whatever. That is not the
crime for the preparation OF which he
WAS tried, nor of which he was con-
victed.
A supplemental brief for rehearing
has also been presented by the Attorney
General, in which he suggests short
notice for the setting of the cause as one
of the reasons why he urges reilearing,
and says his reference to the action of
the court in setting the cases was made
in no spirit of complaint OF that action,
and that he is informed by the Assistant
Attorney General that the day assigned
for the argument may have been fixed
by the court with Difference to his sug-
first called. Such was the fact. The
ment, and was heard "a day later than
that on which the Assistant Attorney
General was willing to take it up, and
two weeks lacking One day after it WIS
first called.
On the day for which it was first set it
went 0yer at the written request Of the
Attorney General, and it was then that
his assist aut announced in open court
that he had proposed to the counsel of
the accused to take up the case ON the
following Monday. We ordered it act
for Tuesday, to be cure of giving to the
State all the time that was needed or
desired. The clerk was instructed to
give written notice thereof to both of
the States counsel, and it was done.
No further time was asked on the part
of the State, and no iltimatiOn given to
us that further time was desired. On
the contrary, we were given to under
stand that The Attorney General desired
no further pOstpOnenent. On the hear
ing We had the assistance OF oral argu
ni.nts from the Attorney General and
from, his assistant, the time being ex-
tended Sv the court beyond that allowed
bv the rules, and We also had the bene-
tit of their elaborate printed brief placed
befere lls at the same time. The first
position taken by the Attorney General
il, that what is record is matter of fact
for the jury exclusively to :iud, and not
matter uf law for the court to decide.
Apublic record Is IL written instrument,
made by public officer as directed by |
law, to serve as II memorial and EVIL |
tlence ot something written, said Or |
done. Of necessity the forms and veri- |
Traitors OF these public Instruments are
by las. Evidence may be |
received to show that paper bearing |
the form and appearance of pnblic |
record was on was not in fact what it |
to be, or to show its custody in |
a public office, or the like; but whether
y gwen document possesses the form
aud character of a public record is to he
determined by it's conformity to the
statute directing its confectioii, il it be
4 statutory instrument. or to the general
law, it it be an ordinary legal instru-
nent and Is from its nature u question
Df law. Ihe proposition that when the
genefai law or Especial statute has pres
crlbed the form and manner of making
! public instrument, and has directedsE
how it shall be verified, The question of
It's conformity to the general or special
statute is one OF fact to be decided by q
uTy, is destructive of the distinction
recognized between mat
Jers of law and fact, and suhyersiye of
principles. Under the
'perasinn of such q principle a court
would be without power or authority tol
ieclde whether the form aud substance
u an intiactment or information lfOr
'hese are pnbilc records) were sufficient
lnder the law. 1t would have been eg~
raor.ilnary 1t SO high m authority az
jilef Justice Parker had sanctioned
'nci, doctrine, and he is the only jnrist
'ited 60 support it in the printed brief,
.ntI i II Ms iangnage had been given in
uli, rs we shall give, the identical case
'ltea u shown to be in accord with the
yell e established rule. 1t is Brier vs.
Woodbury., Flick 362 and il cited with
ne observation that it is conclusive of
he quesflou, whether an instrument is
y - nor o., l'u0lic record is a question Of
act. The esentenee quoted is "a regard
= conclusive evidence, hut what ia or Ia
laI record ~ matter of evidence, and
nay ne proved like other facts: other
siss ,.s there would be M remedy
Inc words Immediately lallowing and
ot qnated are On the plea Of nnnties
eeord; tie fact is to be judged Of by the
ourf, etc, p. 367.
Il has been held time and again that
ne nttefing and publishing forged in
Frnnlehf, pnrporting to be !, check. will,
eea, bond nr. certificate, il not iudic-1
sbla unless the forged instrument. ON
: Taee, y clothed with the forms pres.
lihed by law, and it has nowhere been
eIa tilat tile question whether the forged
has or has moi the form and !,