Year: 1878

Assured Now.


Wednesday morning the Superior Criminal
Court room presented the same enlivened an
pearanee it did on the two previous days. The
lobby was packed with spectators, while
within the witness box were quite @ number OF
witnesses from Vernon parish.


At few minutes before 10 o'clock Anderson
and Kenner, in charge Of Capt Cain, Of the
Parish Prison, appeared in court, the latter
for the purpose Of securing bail If possible.
The complexion Of the jury was the subject
OF general conversation about the court. and
the recent attempt to bribe one OF the jurors
was commented severely upon.
Anderson looked IN uch more com posed than
he has for some time, and his appearance
seemed to indicate that
HE WAS SATISFIED


with at least IL portion of the jury. It was a
little after 10 when Judge Whitaker arrived.
and Nessrs. Castelanos and Ray the Attor-
ney General and the Assistant Attorney Cen
srnl soon followed.


Of the previous day read. After some prelin-
mary business had been transacted the jury
was sent for, and came from their room. They
looked somewhat refreshed after their nights
rest. The witnesses for the State were then
called, seven being absent. Ex-Gov. War
moth entered at IL o'clock and was in-
vlted inside. the bar. Deputy Clerk Waugh,
after both sides announced they were ready,
read the information to the jury.
The first witness called was N. H. Smart.
Lives at Leesville, Vernon parish; Is clerk OF
the court in that parish, and has been such
since January 27, 1877; was connected with
that office prior to that time as Adeputy clerk
Being shown returns) Recognizes his Off
cial signature to the paper; was acting dep
uty clerk from 1878 up 10 1877, when


HE BECAME CLERK.


When the return Of one poll was exhibited the
defense made a very close examination Of the
document; Anderson inspected it sharply, with
John Ray.


John Hay said the defense had objections to
make TO the introduction of the paper The
ground of the objection was, thatit was not the
paper named in the indictment as having been
falsely published and uttered. The indictment
charges that the document uttered is what Is
called @ consolidated return and not what was
offered in evidence. Under the law there is
no such thing he said. as q supervisor Of cleo
tion, and the paper offered Is therefore mad
missible, as it purports to come from him.
The Cot1rt-The objection is one Of those
technical ones which carry no weight with the
court | overrule the objection.


Mr.. RAY reserve the point.


The Cotlrt-Very well then sir; write out
your grounds. ! desire to see the grounds.


The court said that he heard the attorneys
desired toargue the question; he would there
fore withdraw bis ruling.


Mr.. Ray then read the forty-tbird section OF
the election law, and was followed by Mr.. Cas-
tellanos. He desired to call the attention Of
the court to the averment that the document


ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FORGED
was made by the Supervisor of Election,
when in fact the document offered was made
by the Supervisor Of Registration, and that in
cases of forgery the document must be set
forth with such certainty that there can be no
between the averment and the document Of
fered. and further, that it Is essential that
the forgery must be proved first.


The court desired to hear from the Attor-
ney General In o case where forgery Is the
basis of a charge the law must be strictly
complied with.


Mr.. Egan thought that the common law had
been changed by the statutes Of the State
The prosecution had not pretended to set out
a fac simile Of the document forged. The law,
under the statute, does not require the docu-
ment to be set out particularly. 1t was at
tested by the deputy clerk Of the court.


Mr. Castellanos- law requires that the
return should be certified as correct by the
clerk Of the District Court.


Mr.. Egan thought that the law had been
complied with. Ihe objection would apply if
the State had attempted to set outa fac sinile,
but as there was no such attempt the objee-
tion must fall.


The court said 1t thought the best way to
cure what might might hereafter prove


SOURCE OF TROUBLE
would be to amend the information The OBJ
lection was purely technical one. If the At
torney General asks for leave to amend it will
be granted.


Mr.. Castellanos-If the alteration goes to
the force and the substance 1t ought not to be
made.


The Court-Any ruling Of the court will be
given in such way that, II the case, goes to
The Supreme Court, the defense may have full
opportunity to have it in entirety.


The Attorney General and Assistant At
question of amending the information.


After delay District Attorney Finney
offered a motion to amend the information SO
as to insert the words Supervisor of Regis
tration" instead Of the words Supervisor Of
Election" and the words consolidated state
ment" instead of "offlcial returns"


Mr.. Castellanos asked under what law the
right to amend was asked.


The Attorney General-Undcr section 1047
of the Revised Statutes.


Mr.. Castelanos then read his bill OF excep-
tion. The bill set forth the variance between


THE DOCUMENT AND THE INFORMATION,
and that there was no such office as super
visor of election, and the variance was fatal.
Also, that the document was not certified by
the clerk of the court. The ground for the
bill was that the variance goes to the sub
STANCE of the charge: He said that the Attor-
ney General had referred him to section tO47
as the law under which the State had right
to amend. There might be some grounds
under this law to amend the description of the
returns, but 1T could not go further than that.
He referred to the common law, and said that
In cases of forgery it still held good, unless
altered by statute. Citing several authorities,
he said that in cases Of forgery the descrip-
tion must be full, and a class, if the document
belongs to one, must be specifically set out.


Referring to the


MACHINERY OF THE ELECTION LAW
and the number of officers under it through
which the return has to pass, he said where de-
PENDANTS are called upon to answer an informa-
tion based upon a document said to have come
from the supervisor Of election when it should
have been supervisor of registration, the va
rance Is fatal. The defense does not object to
the information because it does not contain g.
full detailed statement Of the document, for
that would be futile, but what they do object to
is that the document purports to come from
one source and there is none such. He read the
section and denied that it gave the State the
- n L..