Case Name: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. A. E. Cohen, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1912-03-26
Citations: 67 Wash. 618
Docket Number: No. 10032
Parties: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. A. E. Cohen, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 618–620

Head Matter:
[No. 10032.
En Banc.
March 26, 1912.]
The State of Washington, Respondent, v. A. E. Cohen, Appellant.
Elections — Offenses — False Registration — Statutes — Construction. One who procures a voter to register and incorrectly state his place of residence, is not guilty of false registration, when the voter did not register in the wrong precinct, under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 4768, defining false registration as the tailing of a false oath, falsely personating another and procuring registration of the person as personated, misrepresenting his name or causing any name to be registered “otherwise than in the manner provided by the act;” in view of the fact that the matter of residence is not included in the oath nor among the acts specifically enumerated as constituting the criminal offense (Chadwick, Gose, Ellis, and Morris, JJ., dissenting).
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Gay, J., entered June 24, 1911, upon a trial and conviction of false registration.
Reversed.
The defendant was tried and convicted upon an informa tion charging that he unlawfully counseled, encouraged, hired, induced, and procured one Adolph Schmelzer to cause his name to be placed upon the registry list of qualified voters otherwise than in the manner provided by law, viz., by stating his place of residence as 721 Sixth avenue, in Seattle, when in fact such number was not the number of his place of residence, etc.
Gill, Hoyt <§• Frye, for appellant.
John F. Murphy and George H. Rummens, for respondent.
Reported in 122 Pac. 9.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The proper disposition of this cause is governed by the decision rendered by department one on December 2, 1911, in the case of State v. Ross, 66 Wash. 138, 119 Pac. 20, which decision was affirmed by the court en banc upon petition for rehearing, this day. Id., p. 141, 122 Pac. 8. The questions determinative of this case being the same as in that, the judgment of the trial court is reversed for the reasons there stated.