The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1878-04-10
THE ANDERSON CASE.
Ths supreme Court Refuses the De-
mand for q Rehear-
ing.
,vr1GpTY OPINIONS AND REASONS WHY
THE RETURNING BoARDER
SHOULD BE SET
FREE.

STATE VS.. THos. c. ANDERsoN-On
application for rehearing. Opinion by
r.. C. Manning, C. j., all of the Jus.
tees eoneurring.
II ia necessary to state anew what
crime the prisoner is charged with.
III that of uttering and publishing as
true certain altered, forged and coun
terfeit public record, to-wit: the con-
solidated return of the parish of Ver-
non, made by the super visor of regis
tratiop. 1t will also be useful to re-
STA. the election law quo ad the two
Instruments or records provided for by
It. One is the commissioners return,
viz: the returns of each poll 10 the
parisb made by the commissioners who
held the election at that poll. The
other is the consolidated returns made
BY the supervisor of registration of
each parish from the commissioners
returns of all the polls in the parish,
and, as consolidated, certified by the
clerk of the district court to be correct.
This last is therefore q document or
record required by law to have dou-
bic yerication, by two different Off
GERS, who are able and who are re-
auired TO verify it from two different
sources of Information.
Now, in order to ascertain whether q
certain paper possesses the form and
requisites of this consolidated Estate.
ment) or return Of the supervisor, we
must first see what form the statute
prescribes for it, and what requisites
the statute says it must have, and the
determination of the question whether
the paper conforms to the statute, and
has the form and requisites set forth in
the statute, rests with the court and is
purely one of law.
We held that the paper offered az
the record which has been uttered az
true, and which comes up to Us as part
of one of the bills of exception, did not
conform to the description in the sta.
tute of consolidated statement oil
votes; that it had not the form and
verifcatiOn required by tile statute. az
paper purporting to be will, with
only one witness, would not be will!
that the paper produced, not having
the certificate of the clerk of the dis.
triet court, was not the paper described
and charged in the information, and
was not what was known to the law
and described in it as the consolidated
return or statement Of votes; aud there
fore, the paper forged was not receiva
bic in evidence under and does not
sustain the charge as laid in the iufor.
nation, just as check, deed, hond OIL
certificate, having the legal form OF
such Instruments, would not sustain
the charge OF altering and publishing
as true forged check, deed, bond o1
certificate.
II 10 not the commissioners returns
which are to be signed by them alone
aud to be certified by no one, that the
prisoner was tried for uttering rs true
That was the instl ument whieh he va.
charged with uttering as forged, in The
information as first drawn, but tlt
State amended by striking out the des
cripti0n OF that instrument and insert
ing in its stead the consolidated state
inent of the supervisor, which is re
quired to be made by that officer, ant
to be certified 10y the clerk of the court
The amendment of the information il
the present case is of itself an example
Of an attempt to conform to the ruiz
We have been calculating and enforc
ing. When the document, thus mad
the basis of prosecution, was offered il
evidence it turned out that it had no
the clerks certificate, and thus lacke'
one of the insignia required by til,
State, and it does not matter whethe
the document as thus offered was o
was not public record. 1t is enough
and it is conclusive, ii the instrument
offered is not the statutory instramen
charged. And hence we said before
it is not necessary to decide whethe
the instrument charged is or is not
public record susceptible of forgery
The instrument offered to support tn,
charge is not the instrument describe,
IN the statute. The statute describe
apaper which shall have the supervi
sors signature and the district cour
clerks certificate. The paper ofere'
in evidence has the former aud not I'll,
latter. 1t is entirely beside our pres
ene inquiry whether the clerks sigma
ture tn the supervisors return woul
have made it "a public record, or wheth
or 1t is not q public record withou
such certificate. Our opinion express
" presents the decision of that ques
ton in language designedIy used. :
but We held that since the statut
commands that these returns shall b
certified by the clerk of the court, an
ehe instrument offered had not tia