Case Name: John A. Smith v. The State of Ohio
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1868-12
Citations: 18 Ohio St. 421
Docket Number: 
Parties: John A. Smith v. The State of Ohio.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 18
Pages: 421–423

Head Matter:
John A. Smith v. The State of Ohio.
A tax duplicate is not a record, within the meaning of section 22 of the crimes act'of March Y, 1835, as amended by act of March 24, 1865, defining the crime of forgery. S. & S. 264.
Error to the court of common pleas of Logan county.
At the J une term, 1868, of the court of common pleas, Smith was indicted for forgery, in this, that being treasurer of Logan county, ■on the 1st of December, 1867, and by virtue *of his office, he [42i had possession of a certain record of a public nature, to wit, the . treasurer’s chattel duplicate of Logan county, which duplicate contained, on page 342, these words and figures, to wit: “Plum Jona« than, 6330 69 62,” meaning that Jonathan Plum owed and was liable’ to pay taxes upon chattel property which he owned in Washington, township, in said county, the “ 6330 ” signifying the value of the .property to be $6,330, and the “ 69 62 ” signifying that the tax was $69.62; and that Smith, with intent to defraud Jonathan Plum, falsely altered the duplicate by changing the first figure 6 in “ 69 62 ” into a 9j so as to make the proper tax appear to be $99.62, instead, of $69.62.
At the February term, 1869, Smith, having pleaded not guilty, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary; but the execution of the sentence was suspended to await the result of an ap~ lication for a writ of error.
At the trial it was proved that the county auditor of Logan, county made a chattel tax list, in duplicate, in book form, of the-taxes in that county, chargeable for the year 1867, retaining one copy in his office, and delivering the other to Smith, as county treasurer. The state gave evidence tending to prove the forgery <on the duplicate in the treasurer’s hands, as charged in the indictment, this being the book on which the state claimed the forgery was committed. Smith objected to the admission of these books in evidence, but the court overruled the objection and permitted page 342 of both books to go in evidence.
Smith now seeks to reverse this sentence and judgment upon the ground, among others, that the document set out in the indictment, is not a record.
Kernan & Kernan, and Lawrence & Howenstine, for Smith:
The duplicate is not a record, and the alleged forgery is therefore-not a crime. 2 Burrill’s Law Dic., title, “Record,” 386; 2 Bouv. Law Dic., title “Record,” 417; 1 Bla. 69 ; 3 Bla. 24; Waverhaven v. Clive, 5 Ohio, 138; Const. U. S., art. 4, sec. 1; 1 Curw. Stat. 195n ; 5 Ohio, 545; 13 Ohio, 209-216; 14 Ohio, 91-98; 2 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 515.
*W. H. West, attorney-general, for the state :
The duplicate of the chattel list delivered to the treasurer is certainly a public record. S. & C. 1457, sec. 47; S. & C. 1477, sec. 7 ;. Bouv. Dic.; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 207; Wharton’s Precedents.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The sentence and judgment of the court below must bo reversed. The tax duplicate charged to have been falsely-altered is not a record, as it is charged to bo in the indictment, within, the meaning of section 22 of the crimes act of March 26, 1835, as amended by act of March 24, 1865, defining the crime of forgery. S. & S. 264. The statute, it will be observed, makes it forgery to-falsely make, alter, etc., " any record or other authentic matter of a public nature'' with intent, etc. Had the indictment in this case-charged the tax duplicate to bó " authentic matter of a public nature" other than a record, the question presented would have been different. But the only question we now decide is the one presented in the case, to wit, is a tax duplicate a record within - the meaning of the section of the statute mentioned'? We hold that it is not.
Judgment reversed.