Year: 1878

elections, the Board receives consolidated


statement of all the polls in each parish


made out by the supervisor of regiatration


of such parish for the law makes 1t the


duty of such supervisor to receive the


returns from the commissioners of electlons'


compile a consolidated statement from


them and then send them together with


his consolidated statement to the RetVrn-


ing Board.
| In the Anderson case it was not charged
in the information as amended that the


original returns had been changed or
tampered with, but that the "consolidated
statement of votes, parish of Vernon, made
by the supervisor of registration" had been
altered and, as 80 altered, published as true
by Anderson.


The Court seems to incline to the opin-
ion that there can be no such thing as
forgery of the "consolidated' statement,
in the legal sense of the term forgery. A
"forgery" in the criminal law is not every
counterfeiting of anothers signature or
altering of words over another's signature.
Though such an act may be a forgery In
the moral law the criminal law does not
take cogaizance of it unless it can have
some practical effect. 1t is as in the case
of perjury. If one should swear before
crowd of men in the street, that the sun is
down, when they all see it shining, Re
would commit perjury in the moral, but
not in the technical, sense. He could not
be prosecuted for it. In the same way
there may be forgeries of which the law
does not take notice. Thus if one should
write ont pardon for condemned GRIM
inal in this State, and sign Queen Victoria's
name to it, probably no law officer would
think of CHASING it as statutory crime.
1t would be thing totally without force
or the possibility of effect.


The Court quotes California decision
to the effect that forgery cannot be pre-


dicated of an instrument which in itself is


a nudum pactunl OF incapable of any effect.


OF course, if there is no forgery, there is


no uttering of it.


The Court applies that principle to the


Anderson case in this way: The Re.
turning Board must make its compilation


and report from the original returns, and
not from the registers consolidated state


ment. The law does not give particle o.
authority to the consolidated statement


nor authorize the Board to utter and pub


lish it or use it as a basis for anything


Therefore the original returns from the


polls have potency and value, and the con.
J solidated statement has none; therefore
the original returns are susceptible o.
forgery, and the consolidated statement ii
not.


If this we're adopted as final by the
! Court, it would follow that Anderson auG


the others, even though they had knowing
\ " uttered and published the registers con
. solidateG statement from Vernon parish
T forgedor altered, would not have committed
, any technical forgery or other crime be
cause they might just ss we'll have manipu
lated some newspaper returns. But th
8 Court finds it unnecessary to decide th
8 point as will be seen from the following
Q paragraph taken from it's opinion:
1t is unnecessary for US to say whether tn
Q consolidated returns of the supervisor of regis
tration, without the clerks certificate, is or
y not public record, susceptible of forgery.
q | is sufficient to remark that the paper otfere


| in evidence is not the instrument the utteranc


of which as forged is charged upon the defend


ant.


In what respect the document offered i
N evidence differs from the instrument re
10 ferred to in the amended information "
;. are not told. The case goes off how
lg ever on this ground-that the instrumel
g. alleged to have been tampered with Wi
ID not offered in evidence on the trial-ar
b. on the following ground.


he 1t was not charged in the pleadngs tn
d. Anderson had uttered and published Il
forged document in an Official capacit
ch while it was no legal otfense unless do
de in such capacity. 1t is clear that if t
g. editor of the Picayune or Times had ma
rt. up a return of the election from forged doc
NJ ments. and uttered or published it, the
nd would have been entirely imperative.
is legal result would have followed, no ella
M to Office could have been based on it
lid Anderson, in his individual CAPACITY Y