St. Landry democrat., 1878-03-30

turning board In favor of q candidate
Improperly returned or returned upon
the forged or falsified certificates.
Neither the returns by the commission
ers, nor the supervisor, nor the return
ing board are conclusive.
The contestant may go back to the
ballots of the electors. But policy has
dictated that in the process OF the elec-
tion there shall be separate and lnde-
pendent action of the commissioners;
supervisors and returning board, ana
value to the acts of either under'nInes
legislative authority and oyerrldes 1t.
It ia impossible to admit that II the
forgery of certificates by the cOmnTs-
sione1s of election or the Justification
of their figures be crime under the
statute, or il the Justification or forgery
of the returns or figures OF the return
ing board be crime, that the forgery
and Justification of the supervisors
consolidated statement and report is
harmless orr innocent. They are
separate and distinct acts in the course
of proceedings all tending to the same
resuit-the asccrtalument OF the result
of the election-al of these are under
authority, and each has some authority.
The statute requires tlEelr acts to be
manifested by official statements, and
these official statements are records.
The fact that they have this character
establishes that any forgery, falslfica-
tion or counterfeiting would be =
crime.
A civil cause in one Of the district
courts is only prepared with the assis-
tance of a great number Of persons.
There are citation. petition, plea. de
positions, trial, Judgment, execution.
The Justification OF any one Of these
the cause would be the forgery of a
record. Of writ, Commonwealth VS..
Mycall, Q Mass, 1856. OF the petition or
of AN indictment, 8 Mad. 6S; Hawk
Pleas, chapter 70, section 2 and 3. Of a
deposition, State VS.. Kemball, so Maine,
400, of feri fdcias, 3 Chitty, CIR. L. 1044.
The court in such cases infer fraud
from the nature OF the act done.
There are a great number Otscases I'D
which the forgery of papers is held to
be fraudulent, when it was quite lm-
possible that damage could result ex-
cept in respect to unwaly persons. The
forgery of wills for persons who have
not had existence-the accertance OF
drafts in the name of fictitious OF
uon-existing firm.
Regina vs.. Avery, s C. and P, 500.
Regina IS. Rogers, Ibid, 629.
Whether such papers were or how
they could be an instrument OF fraud
WAS to be ascertained by the extrinsic
circumstances. 1t is not sufficient tu
say that the supervisors return was not
the proper paper that the members 0t
the returning board were to principally
consider, or that it was not the best
evidence. But the paper was used, and
the paper was fraudulently altered and
falsitied that it might impose upon. the
public. The paper was successfully
used. If this was used in connection
with other papers TO produce q fraudu-
lent result in their count and they re-
turned upon it's evidence and forged il
for that purpose, it makes q case OF
forgery.
From the time of the decision in
Wards case Ito be found in Lord Ray
mOndss Reports, page 146D, the rule
was established that, at common law,
writings of every description-wh hethe
of q public or private nature, whether
written or printed, whether of record
under seal, or by parOl, aud whether
invested with legal character or not
are equally subjects of forgery, being
equally within the definition and mis-
chief Of the crime. See Burn'seJust.
tit. Forgery; defined by Savage, Ch.
j., in The People VS.. Fitch, Wend
Rep, 1893; I'd volume Arscllibold Cri-
ninal Practice and Pleading, page 79e
ledition of 1867
The question Of fraudulent intent
was q proper question for the jury.
United States vs.. Wilcox. 4th Blatcll
C. G. 1856.
y, I cannot we'll understand the position
of the court. 1t You had decided that
the statute referred only to the forgery
OF a particular class of records, us fOl
instance, records of courts, or had re-
stricted it's operation to any number Of
classes, executive of these election
records, could have understood better
the ruling of the court, although can
not see how such distinction could be
properly made. But the court seems to
admit that certain of these papers re-
quired to he made by election officers
are within the statute. cannot see
why the others belonging to the same
system and required by the same an
tholity are hot so.
Upon the question as to whether the
document offered in evidence without
the clerks certificate was that charged
t0,haVe been forged in the information,
shere are two things to be said
/. It was: because the paper de-
scrited in the information was the
consolidated statement OF votes of the
supervisor of registration," and the
paper offered in evidence was "tIle con-
solidated statement of votes of the
supervisor OF registration. The clerks
certificate, although directed by the
law to be appended, is not of the sub
stance of this document, but u mere
formal matter--a part of the election
machinery Of the State, and its omis-
sion. while rendering the clerk culpa-
BILE, does not destroy the validity OF the
record.
2. II this difficulty had been real
Ope it could not justify the decision of
the court as rendered the most the
court could have done upon this ground
was TO have remanded the case for a
new trial. The difficulty is not, how
over, real one. This court has itself
decided that the requirements OF these
election statutes are directory, and if
this be true, how can you hold here
that the absence of this formality so
far changes the substance of this dOcu-
ment as to make it inadmissible in evi-
dence under the information It seems
to me, with all due respect, that sub
stance and shadow are here badly con-
founded by the court.
On the last pOint-the point discussed
in Mr.. Rays brief, which was filed with
cut u service upon us and never seen by
us until after the decision had been
rendered, We cannot well understand
the position of the conrt. The statute
ander which this information was 8ledl,