The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1878-03-27
ABderSOn's Escape.

Here is the gist of the decision Of
the Supreme Court in the Anderson
case:
To constitute forgery, the forged in
strnment must be one which, if genu-
Inc, may injnre another. and this must
appear, either from the description of
the Instrument or by the averment of
matter alinnde. Where, from aught
tina. appears in The information, the
instrument was nadum factum, or of
no effect, forgery cannot be predicated
upon it. People va. Tomlinson, IS
cal. 500 And the same principle of
course applies to the uttering of q
forged instrument. 1t is unnecessary
for us to say whether the consolidated
returns of tile supervisor of reeistra-
tion, without the clerks certificate, is
or is not a public record, susceptible
of forgery.
1t is sufficient to remark that the
paper offered in evidence is not the
instrument the ntterance Of which az
forged, is charged upon the defendant,
in either the original or amended iufor-
nation.
After conviction, a motion in arrest
of Judgment was made, because it was
net charged in the information. either
in its original form or as amended,
that the ufteriDg, or publishing the al
legged altered and forged instrument.
was done by the defendant in any off :
cial capacity; either as one of the re-
turning board officers or in any capac-
Y other than as an individual, and
that such offence could only have been
committed in an official capacity to
operate an injury to or fraud upon any
person or body public.
ii is manifest that the nttering and
publishing by private person Or 10y
a person in any public capacity other
than that OF a returning officer of cleo
tlons, could not have injured or de
frauded any one. Suppose that tour
presidents of az many banks in this
city had uttered and published as trne
altered a,.d forged consolidated state
mensa Of votes of any parish at an
election, as s:sade by the Supervisor Of
Registration, and had caused the same
TO he t,sb.ishcts in the official Journal
Hnder their signatures as presidents of
the banks. world they have been in
dictnbla ei'arefor under the statute I
Ard Why not : Simply because they
had no legal mission or authority to
do that act, aud as no legal effect
would be prndnced b. it, no one would
be injured or aesrauded by it. Every
one ia pronounced to know the law,
and therefore to know that the persons
thus altering ard publishing, were
without authority TO do that particular
act. and that it was void and of no ef-
feet when done. Hence it is the es-
srnce Of this crime, that it should have
been committed by a public officer
whose function it was to prepare and
puhlisl, the true canvass and csmpila
ton of votes, and the averment thai
ne uttered, and published the false
canvass and compilation in his officia
capacity, and under color of his office
is essential in an information to sup
port conviction. and Justify judg'
mens thereon. The information hal
not such averment.
The charge of the judge below
which is admirable in its judicial tone
and temper, though, as we have seen
erroneous on the questions Of law We
have reviewed, proceeds throughout
on the idea or assumption that the ac
} charged in the information as crimina
was done in the defendants official Cd
pacity. Even the instructions asked
by the Defendants counsel are base(
nn that idea. 1t was nowhere 81
charged.