OCR Interpretation

St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, April 13, 1878, Image 1

Image and text provided by Louisiana State University; Baton Rouge, LA

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88064537/1878-04-13/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

M. D. KAVANAGII, Editor.
Onb Dollar and Fiftv Cents n year, in tui -1
r awc. Tilt; year eau i>e beguu at any time, as
llfty-two uurobers of the paper make a year's
.........Barre'» Landing
............Rayon Ciiieot
...............Ville Plate i
. ..... Bijt Cu ue |
..............Chureliville !
............Betit Prairie I
.......».....Washington {
. .........Grand Cotean j
.....Plaquemine Bruli -6 1
................Mennento |
.......Pmii'liommc City j
. ........Fabaeher P. 6 |
. .............Poiipevi'.le
.............Amaudvlüe |
..............Bayou Beeuf j
a. .........Balie Charles |
The gentlemen above named are our agents j
nd H? snelt requested to solieit aubsoriptions. j
I). P. Saizan.......
Capt. Sant. Haas...
J. J. Hieks.........
Leopold Godehaux
Abraham Riehard.
Dr. .1. F. Eester—
Henry Woodworth
Mentor Andrus.....
Foreumu A Dtisoix
Andrew Henry.....
T. C. Chachere.....
jo» Fabaeher ......
J. D. Beruard......
E. C. Hoger......
U. 8 . Gay ..........
K. I. Koster'........
_____ __ . _______________________ ;
~~ÖFELOi:.SAS. 'SATli R»Aï, APRIL 13, lsi 8 . !
tt , 71 7. _____• , ... ... .
We would caII special attentie»i to
tlie notite of tlie rown Counci! calluig
for lilds for town priiitiug.
Want of spart; prevent» out pnlilisli
jng the annual report of tlie town Treas
urer this week. __
We have been lequested by thechair
tnau of tlie visiting eoimuittee of the
public schools, R. S. Wilkins, Esq., to
state tliat the public school for colored
children, kept by Mrs. D'avy, in Wash
ington, does nofcrecei veany support from
the puLdic school futid, but. is carried on
as a private Enterprise without reniu
neratiou. Such disinterestedm ss, lieiftg
very uncoiumon in this practical age,
was calcnlated to mislead the public as
tvell as tlie loeal of the Dkmocrat. We
theref'mcgladly pnblish tiieexplauatiou.
Tlie Natcliitoclies Vindicatorand New
Orleaus Democrat have both been uu
nsually severe in their auimadversious
npoli the Supreme Court, for their de
cision in the Anderson case. Th
tois of these* rej^ctnble and infiiteutial
journala are cerfainly unacquainted with
the i-ersonal histories of the present
Judges of the Supreme ouit ^ ,)UI8 '
iaua. Inouropinion they are men of
nnspotfed integrity, of ujj^ilemished
Tepntations, wlio uuder no ctTcumsfan
i.i t .
ces wonld have become partus to anj
agreement, which would have brought
the judiciary of the State into disrepute
even if such agreemeut had been nec
essary to save the goverument. When
ever any paper, it maffers not how res
peetalde it may be where or by whoni
published, charges tliat such n man as
jndge DeBlanc, (and we believe his
asBoeiates on the Supreme bench are
his peers in every respect) lias heen
guilty of making any lmrgain or per
forming any act tiuged with dislion
•or, it ssserts what not one man,
woman or eliild in South western Louis
iana, where his name is the very syn
onymie for evefything, tliat is high
foned chevalrons aud !ionorab!e would
believe. _2_
Attention Democrats.
The New York Tribune once offered
this judiciups adviee:
There are no Repnblican voters to
spare. Wiioever clamors at Republican
newspapers for not cracking the wliip
over this or tliat person, and driviug
hiin and his supporters either out of the
party or into the tracés, does not quite
understatnd the ïieeds of the time.
There liever was greater occasion to
«fndy tliose tliiugs tliat inake for peace.
Ipi', fomenting of quarrels and building
np of 1 *,'*«tions wil! boom couvert yester
dav's lossen' '! ,to rout>
Werenrodi.ee tiw above art iele for
vverepiouuce .
the purpose of givinj? •"** 8flme advicet
to the Democrats of the ^bate and par-I
Upni.,vi„i„ u,.. ao „rsi T..n' ï «T narisls.
ticuhuly to tliose ol St. Lam. / P« >■
Since reemistrnction there bas he. « »"
time when it bas been equally necessaC v
for all tnembers of the Democratie party
to stand shoulder to shoulder as at, pres
ent. "There neverjwas greater occasion to
study tliose things tliat inake for peace. 1 '
The fomenting of quarrels and building
up of factions will aoon couvert the
victory of 1876 into an absolute defeat,
and slionld such calamity overtake us
ut present, (owing to any divisiou in our
<nvn party,) we fear it would result in a
permanent occupatie» of our present
position l.y the eneiuy.
While we are in favor of tlie. most
atrict party descipline, we trust every
Democrat in the State, hut more espe
ciallly every one in St. Landry wil! rec
oguize the absolute necessity of nnity,
and of a complete and thornngh dis
bandment of all factions which have
divided us in the past.
We believe the rnasses of both fac
tions of the party iu this parish have
been hoiiest in their past differences, hut
wisdom slionld be learned by experienee.
We shiHild not forget that in 1876 with
2000 majority for the State ticket, the
Republicans elected three menihers of
the Legislature and a portion of tiieir
parish ticket. Such a result must liever
occur agaiu. Let the past hui y its dead
and let every Democrat endeavor to
forget the late Varieties Conrthonse war
and in the coming canvas», let each
member of what we trost are dead fue
tjons, vie with each nther in tiieir en
<1eavois to heul all past differences, so
that in Novcmheï next the parish of St.
Landry may present, n solid front to the
enemy ynder whatever name he may he
ninsiered and oor parish may agaiti be
recognized as tlie bauner parish of the
Two Smart Young Men.— Abont a
week ago there were two smart young
men got ou a Burlington and 'Cedar
Rapids train aml laid themsel.ves out to
amuse and insti nct the pasRengers. Very
niany fnnny tliingssaid and very manv
fnnny things did these two brillianf
young men, and it did see.m as thougli
Providence had been jast too kind to
the other passengers to let tnem ride on
the train with such smart yomig men.
But preseiitly there loomed lip for thein
a rolossal opportunitv, when a lady, at
tendeii l»y a little girl and a little dog,
came into the. car. The two young men
vied witii eneli other in saying fnnny
things nhmiti the pup. Preseutly the
fuoniest young man said, in tones of
aeiplexity, " Well, let me st'e, thev m ike
:ogB rny on this train, don't they?"
And toen the lady turned armmd, and
said in just the driest tones vou ever
heard a lady say anything, Then yon'd
■1 «etter get off before the conductor
eome» in." There was a great deal of
talking and a great deal of iaughter in
the car between tlie place where that
accident occurred and Burlington, lint
the men who were killed at the siege of
Jerusalem were noisy, roaring, bowling
baechamiliams a week ago, iu comp ri
son with those two young men for the
i - est of the trip,~fBm;|in^toö Havrkep.
The Anderson Case.
[Frota the Néw Orleaus Democrat.)
! Some nme after the opetiiu# of tlie
i Suprem Co uit yesterday nioiuiug,
; Juilite Manniug read the following de
! cision, refusiiiK tlu; re hearing: asked for
; l»y Aitm ney General Ugdeu :
I 'State vs. Tlionuis C. Anderson—On
j.,ppij cat j (m f or relieaiinjï. Opmion by
| Manui»#, C. J., all of the justiees cou
' cuniufr.
j The iiuportance of the legal principles
involved in tliis case, and the grave and
fai-reacliing consequences of au appli
] rat ion of thein to the prosecutiou of the
I defeudant, liave ioduced us to recon
sider tlie grouuds upon whicli our decia
ion is based witii the saine circum
spection with which we examined thein
on the hearing. We have given care
ful attention to the argument of the
Attorney Genera! fora rehearing. weigh
ing each branch of it in its turn, and
Consulting eacliauthority cited. In ful
tillmcu; of our manifest duty, of w hich
iie reminds us, te permit uo considera
rions whatever u> iiiteivene between
us and the proper discharge of our judi
cia! ft ction, wc c hall proceed to re view
th* re ons otfe t 1 us to effect a change
of om judguient.fc
1 1 must He observed on the threshold
o . us inquiry tliat a considerable part
•o tlie printed argument for rehearing
is directed to the refutation of a dictuui
i. i! made by us. Wliether the instru
ment charged to hare been uttered as
forged is or is not a public record, sns
ceptibic of forgery, or wliether, not
lieiug a pnhlic record without the
ole'k'-s certificate, it wil! be one with
it are questions we not ouly did
not decide, but expressly aud in un
was unnecessary in tliis case tor us to
decide. So, too, of tliose portionsof the
brief which treat of the crime charged
as being forgely (as, i'or example, this,
the paper charged to have been al
fered or falsitied is ,i paper which the
supervisor," etc.,) it ought to be super
III: ' ......
tfuous to say tliat tl.e defen iant wasnotf
charged with forging auy record, public
or private, nor for forging auy paper of
any kind whatever. That is not the
crime for the perpetratiou of which he
was tried, nor of which he was con
tie States counsel, and it was done
No turther time was asked on the part
0 f tlie State, aud no intimation given to
us that fnrther time was desired. Ou
tiie contrary, we were giveu to under
st;u)d rh3t ^ Attorney Ggieral desired
„„ fuftfier postpouemeut. On tlie hear
iug we had tlie assi sta tu'e of oral argu
A Bupplemental brief for rehearing
Iris also heen presented by the Attorney
General, in which he suggests short
notice for the setting of tlie causeasone
of the misons why he urgesa rehearing,
and says his reference to the action of
the court iu setting the cases was made
in no spirit of couiplaint. of that action,
and tliat he is informed by the Assistaut
Attorney General that the day assigued
for the argument may have been fixed
by the court with defereuce to liis sug
gestion made on the day the cause was
fitst ealled. Sneb was tlie fact. The
cause was a second time set for argu
ment, and was heard a day later tliau
tliat. on which tlie Assistaut Attorney
General was willing to take it up, and
two weeks iacking one day after it was
tirst ealled.
On the day for wiiieb it was firsfc set it
went over at the writteu request of the
Attorney General, and it was then tliat
his assisiaut annouiiced in open court
tliat he had proposed to the counsel of
the accu-cd to fake up the case on the
following Momlay. We ordered it set
for Ttiesday, to be eure of giving to tlie
State all the time tliat was ueeded or
desired. The clerk was instructed to
give writteu notice thereof to both of
mg _______
ni r!its from the Attoruey General and
rom kis assistaut, the time being eï
teiided by the court beyond that allowed
i>y (he rules, and we also had the bene
fit of theirelaborate printed brief placed
befere us at the saine time. The first
position taken by tlie Attorney General
irf, tliat what is a record is matter of fact
for the jury exclusively to fiud, and not
inatier of law for the court to detvide.
Apublic record isa writteu instrument,
made by a public «.lieer as directed by
law, to serve as a memorial and evi
ilence of sometbing writteu, said or
done. Of necessiiy the forins and veri
ficaiio s of these public instruiuents are
nreaerihed by law. Evidence uiay be
iviai to show that a paper hearing
the fonu and appeurance of a public
record was or was not in fact what it
purports to be, or to show its enstody in
a public office, or the like; but wliether
a given document possesses the fortn
and character of a public record is to be
determined by its coufonnity to the
statute directing its confection, if it be
a starutory instrument, orto the general
law, if it be an ordinary legal instru
ment and is from its nature a question
of law. Tlie proposition tliat when the
ge.neral law or aspecial statute bas pres
eribed the fortn and manner of making
a public instrument, and bas directed*
how it shull he verified, the question of
its conformity to the generai or sneciai
statute is one of fact to be decidea by a
jury, js destructive of the distinction
iminemmiaüy recognized between mui
ters of law and fuer, and snhversive of
fundanie.ntal principles. ünder the
operation of sticli a principle a court
would he without, poiver or authority to
decide wliether the ferm and eubstance
of au indtetrnent or informution (for
these are public records) were sufficiënt
under the law, lt w ould have heep ex
traoDbnary if so high an authority as
Ghief Justice Parker had sanctioned
such doctrine, aud he is the ouly jurist
* 1 , ./V. R1, P® nr t it in the printed brief,
aud if his language had been given in
tuil, ns «'e shall give, the identieal case
cited is shmvu to be iu accord with the
well established rnle. It is Brier vs.
\\ oodbury, 1 Piek 362 and is cited with
the observatie» that it is conclusive of
the question, wliether an instrument is
' >r 18 n D?; a F*ublic record is a question of
tact.. 1 liesentence quoted is: "A record
is conclusive evidence, hut what is or is
not a record is matter of evidence, and
may be proved like other facts; other
wise there would he no remedy."
I he word» umuediately lolloivingand
not quoted nre: "On the pleaof nnnticl
record. Me fact is to be judged of by the
court," etc., p. 367.
It lias heen held time and again tliat
the nttf 4 ?!!}# and pnhüslnn^ a foiwd iu
Bfrutnci r, pnrporring to be a check, will,
«leed, houd or certificate, is not indic-'
table uitlesg the forged instrument, on
its face, is clothed with the for nis pres
t.uiat! ky|aw-,audit lias uowhere tteen
held that tlie question wliether tlie forged
instrument has or h«R not the fortn and
requisites of a cheefc, will, deed, hond or
ceitificate, is one of fact, and not of law.
. 1 hus, a partv was indicted for forg
ing a bank c.ieck. Tlie. check, on its
tace was not payable to bearer, or to the
order of auy person named. He
the check was iucouipli te and «.->
defraud anyone, and that,
the prosecutiou must fail. Wüa
! State, 31 Ga. 535. Ia ar imi; rt
j forging a wib, it a p; t i i.-i tli
forged instrument had not t t
oi wunesses required fm a vg
coti viction caiinot be siisiained. 2 Bishop
C'riuiiual Law, sectiou 508.
it a deed be void on its face, forgery
of it is not iudictable, nor the uttering
it as forged. 14 Text. 503. if a boud is
not required by law to have an attgsting
witness, and tlie name ui om is falsely
subscribed thereto, it is om forgery, be
cause tlie presence or -s. nc ■ of a wit
uesssigiiature does nol ..iicci tlu* validity
of the bond. State vs. Gm ikiu, 7 Ired.
206. An imiietmeut fm forging a cer
titicate of the ackuowledgemeut by one
L. of a certailt mortgage, wlieu tlie cer
titicate was l>y one K., commissioner ot
deeds, and it had no venue and there
was nothiug on its face to show of what
couuty K. wasa commissioner, was held
to be bad. Vincent vs. Feople,5 Parker
88. An imiietmeut for forgery of an
order lor $48 is not siistained by au or
der offered in evidence of $49. State
vs. Handy, 2 App. 81. The special ob
ject and purpose of tlu; sale requiring
<he tenor or purport of a forged instru
ment to be set out iu the indictment, is
tliat the court may jndge of its diame
ter aud apply the law to it. Walton vs.
State, 3 Verg. 371.
Iu au imiietmeut for forging a rail
road ticket, expressed on its tace to he
" good for this day only," a description
of the ticket, as sigmfying to the bol
der that it must be used continuously
aud without stopping at iutermediate
stations after ouce entering tlie cars isa
fatal variauce. Gom. vs. Ray, 3 Graj
(Mass.) 441. It is tlien manifest thai
the que.'tiou wliether a forged papei
possesses tlie legal requisites of auy ol
the iiistruiiieiits is one ot law and nol
of tact. Authorities of the sa me teuoi
might he multiplied uut.il the mere read
iug qf the citatious would be tedious.
It will be sufficiënt to refer to collatious
of thein in Archihold's Crimiual Prae
tice and T. G. Watermaii's Notes, 534
563; Haine's U. S. Dig. Glim. Gas. 192.
et seq.; VVhartou's Grim. Law, sec. 301,
i :
... ia.
l., a
We must not omit inention of the case
to which the brief ou the part of the
State bas especially referred us, in es
tablishing tlie doctrine that forgery may
be committed of any writings of ever.v
description—a geueral proposition ueith
er atfirmed nor deuied by us, aud one
not at all affected by our ruiling iu this
case, and not the point at issue iu that.
The case is the People vs. Fitch, 1
Wend. 198, the syllabus of which we
transcribe entire, that it may be seen
how fulijr aud uuqualifiedly it supports
tlie doctrine elabmately discussed and
approved iu our first opiniou : " Where
au order for the delivery of goods was
accepted and paid, and returned to the
drawer, and the date of it subsequently
altered by him, such alteration held not
to be forgery at conmion law, altliougli
manifestly «loue witii a frandulent iu
tcirt. To constitute forgery in such
case, tlie act must have a tendency to
effectuate the iutended fraud. An or
der satistied by tiiedelivery of the good
in the hands of the diawer, in legal
ceptafiou is no instrument, aud a: a>
teiation of its date is no faise muiiiug.
It is what it purports to be.' 1
It is uecessary to state auew what
crime the prisouer is charged with. ii
is that of uttering and paiiiisaing as truc
a ceirain altered, forged and coutiter
feit public record, to-wii : tlie consoli
dated return ot the_ parish ot \ ernon,
B*a(le,by fbe supervisor o! registratiou.
, w . ! . ° *° '.'-■state the
eleetion .law q,toad_ the two instrumeuts
or records proviitcd tor by ii. One
the commissioner's retimi, viz: the re
turns of each poll ui the parish made by
tlie commissiouers who hebl tlie elec
tion at that poll. The other is the Con
solidated returns made by tlie super
visor of registratiou of each parish from
the commissiouers 1 returns of all the
polls in the parish, and, as Consolidated,
certified by tlie clerk of'the district court
to be correct. This last is therefore a
documeut or record required by law to
I.qive a doublé vei iflcatioi), by two dit'
feront officefs, who are abie and who
are required to verify it from two dif
ferent sources of informntiüu.
Now, iu order to ascertain wliether a
certaiu paper possesses tlie form and re
quisites ot this Consolidated (statement
or) return of the supervisor, we must
tirst see what fortn the statute pres
ciüies for it, and what requisites tlie
statute says it must have, and the de
termination of the question wliether the
paper conforms to the statute, and hus
the fprin and requisites set forth in the
statute, rests with the court and is
purely one of law.
We beid tliat the paper offered as tlie
record which lias heen uttered as true,
and which comes up to us part of one
of the biils of exccption, did not con
form to the description in the statute rif
a Consolidated statement of votes ; that
it had not the form aud verificatiou re
quired by the statute, as a paper pur
porting to he a will, with only one wit
ness, would not bea will; that the paper
produced, not having the certificate of
the clerk of the district court, was not
the paper descrihed and charged iu the
ipformation, and was not what was
kuowu to the law, and descrihed iu itas
the cmisolidaied return or statement of
yotes; aud, therefore, the paper qiïered
was not rweiygble ?n evidence under
and does not sustain tlie charge as Jaid
in the iuformation, just as a check, deed,
hond or certificate, having tlie legal
form of such instrument», would uot
eustain the charge of uttering and pub
lishliig as fcrue a forged check, deed,
bond or certificate.
It is not the commissioners' returns
which are to be sigued by them alone,
and to be certified by one, that the pris
otier was tried for uttering as true.
That was the instrument which he was
charged with uttering as forged, in the
ii foruiation as first drawn, but the State
amended by striking out the descrip
tion of the instrument and inserting in
its stead fhe Consolidated statement of
the supervisor, which is required to be
made by that officer, and to he certified
by the clerk of the'court. Tlie amend
nient of the iuformation in tlie present
case is of itself an example of an at
tempt to conform to tlie rule^ we have
'neert elucidatipg and enforcing. When
the document,Anus made the ba-;|s qf
prosecutiou, was offered in evideuve it
turned out that it had not the e!erk's
certificate, and tlius laeked om> ot' the
insiguia jeqtiired by the State, and it.
does not matter wheï,In r the document
as tlius offered wasbr was uot a public
It is enough and it is conclusive, if
the instrument offered is not the statu
tory instrument charged. And hence
we said liefore, it is not uecessary to
decide wliether the instrnmeut charged
is or is not a public record susceptible
of forgery. The instrument offered to
support the charge is n<>t the instrument
descrihed in the statute. The statute
descrihesa paper which shall have the
supervisor's signature and the dist.riet
court clerk's certificate. The paper
offered iu evidence lias the funuer aud
lias not the latter. It is eutiiely beside
■>ur pieseut inquiry wliether the clerk's
signature to the supervisor'» return
would have made it a public record, or
« hether it is not a public record witli
out such certificate. Our opinion ex
pressly presents the deeision of that
question iu language designedly used.
But we held that siuce tlie statute com
uiands that these returns sliall be ccrti
tied by the clerk of the court, and the
instrument offered had not that certiii
cate, it was not the public record tlie
defeudant was charged with uttering as
forged. And here applies with crush
ing force the doctrine universally uiain
taiued by al! the writers on crimiual
law, that when a statute authorizes or
creatcs an instrument uot kinnen to the
common law, and presciibes its form
and iiupresses upon it peculiar features,
iu order tq decidea prosecution for ut
tering as forged such an instrument, the
paper actuaily forged or uttered as
forged must conform to the statutory
description. And Bishop says this is
true even when the faise statutory one
is so like the geuuitie as to be liable to
tieceive most persons.
It would be au injustice to infer tliat
the Attorney General was uuaware of
this piovision of the statute. In tlie
brief before us it is said " the paper
prepared by tlie supervisor of registra
tnm is a paper of a punlic nature, ili
lected to be made by the Legislature,
to be certified by oihceis ot (iie State,
and to be caietully sealed up with the
other papers, and mjiI to the officers ol
the State who have uuties to perform.
i'his paper is evidence tliat tiie commis
siouers of eleetion have trausmitted to
the supervisors returns as reqimed by
law. ft is evidence that the oiticer (the
vlerk) withiu a short period lias ex
aimned tiicse returns, aud ascertaiued
tlie result to which he certifies." The
clerk had liever certified to the one ou
which this prosecutiou is based, and no
one else is required to do it, and so,
fut Hier ou it is argued, " that the clerk'»
certificate, althougli directed by the
iaw to be appeuded, is not of the stib
stauee of tiiis document, but mere for
mal matter—a part of the eleetion uia
chinery of the .State, aud its omission,
while reuderiug the clerk cuipable,
does not destroy the validity of the
record." It is uot our concern to recon
cile the aduiission that the paper i»
evidence that the clerk, withiu a short
period, bas examined the returus, witii
tlie assertion that his certificate to the
correctuess, and to his ascertaiumeut oi
the result, is a mere foruial matter—oi,
in other words, tliat it meaus nothing.
But some of tlie requiremeuts ot elec
tion statutes are nierely directory, ami
heilig so, the question is asked how can
it be heid that the absence of this for
mality (the clerk's certificate) so far
changes tiie substauce of this docu
ment as to make it iuadmissible in evi
deuce under the iuforniatiou. There
is uo question of a change of substauce
of a document because of the absence
of a formality, if, indeed, such a thing
be public, uur is there any question ot
the effect produced upon the result of
au eleetion by the lailure to observe
certaiu directions, as to which the uni
versal rq,le of construction is, that elec
iiou statutes are to beeonstrued liberal
ty and to favor the right ascertaiumeut
af the vote cast, while crimiual statutes
are, by a rule equally uuiversal, to be
.•onstrued strictly iu favor of the party
uccused. The actual aud vital ques
tiou here is, having proseeuted the
prisouer for uitering as forged a parti
cular statutory instrument, bas the
State sliowu tliat he did utter as forged
tliat instrument? The State lias not
siiown it. It may have shown that the
prisouer altered as forged another aud
a different instrument, but the deeision»
of all courts come dowu to us iu an un
brokeu liue of authority, that a convic
tie» caunot be sustaiued uuder such
charge, supported only by such proof.
It is also argued : " It is not sufficiënt
to say tliat the supervisor's return was
not tlie paper that the members of the
Returning Board were to priueipally
consider, or tliat it was not the best
evidence. Tlie paper was used, and the
paper was fniudulently altered and
falsitied, tliat it might impose upon the
public. Tlie paper was sueeessfully
used. If this was used in counectiou
with other papers to produce a fraudu
lent result in their contit, and they re
tuiueil upon its evidence aud forged
it for that purpose, it makes a case of
forgery." The prisoner was not prose
ented for that crime. He was not
charged with forging that paper, or any
paper for any purpose. One man may
forge a paper and another may utter it
as forged. Tlie crime» are distinct, the
acts are distinct. So far from suppos
ing it was sufficiënt to say that the
supervisors return was tlie paper that
the temming officers tyere pincipally
to consider, or that it was tlie best evi
dence, we said, as the statute says, it
was uot to he considered at al!, and
that it was uot made by the statute any
evidence whatever of the actual vote
cast, It was not the paper nor one of
the papers which the returning officers
were to canvass in making their compi
latie» of the vote. G T pou that tlie di
reetions of tlie statute •are explicit.
Wliether in the absence or loss of the
eonimissipp-ers' returns it wonld not he
recéivable in an eleetion contest as
secondary evidence of the vote cast.
or even as good as the best evidence, is
a matter of inquiry not relevant to the
criminal proceedings. And it must he
evident that we caüupt know as a court,
and in a case where we havé Jurisdic
tiën ouly of the legal questions tliat the
defeudant and his co-members of the
Returning Board did iu fact make up
their compilatie» from the supervisor'.»
return, and sueeessfully used them to
produce a fraudulent result. That is a
matter of fact wliolly outside of tlie
ïecord, and if it had been in the record
coqhl pot be taken iuto account by us
in dcciding a naken queetjon of iaw.
" I cannot understand the argument,"
continued tlie Attoruey General, " tliat
prouounces a nullity au official paper
which the statute directs shall he made
and placed in the hands of public offi
cers, aud heing of no value or efficacy,
U!ay be altered, forged and falsitied
Witn impunity." Nor can We. But an
acqiiaintance with the rules governing
crimiual prosecutions will enable one
rendily to understand tlmt when a per
son is charged with uttering as forged a
particular instrument, he caunot be
cpnyicted aud piinished for forging
another aud différent instrument. So,
further ou, apparently forgetting what
the charge is in this case, and misread
ing the records of the statute, he ar
gues elaborately to prove what no one
will even riispute, viz; that whoever
may he guilty of forging a public record
"!'hI 1 lie puuishabie, and professing to
cite the law, says: "The statute is
that any person who shall utter and
pnblish as true any faise, altered, forged
or counterfeited record with intent to
defraud any person shall, upon convic
tion," etc. Now, that is not the statute.
The fact is tlie word utter is not in tlie
Btatqte, hut alter is the word used, and
oue of the numevous grounds of the
raotion ia arrest of judginent is based
upon the variance between the crime
defiaed by tlie statute aud the crime
charged in the iuforniatiou. There is a
well recognized distinction at conininu
law between the otfense of uttering a
forged instrument aud tlie offéuse of
alteriug aud publishing such instru
ment. The first otfense is complete
when the party lias offered the instru
ment as good, iniendiug it should be
received as good. The last is not com
plete until the paper lias come into tlie
Iiands of some person other thau tlie
fellou. The coinmou law crilue lias
Deen supplemented by statutes in every
country creating statutory offéuse» of
this character. In Eugland the words
used iu the statute to express the pass
ing or putting off a forged instrument
to another as a getiuiue instrument, or
au at tempt to do so, are, "offer, utter,
dispose of, or put off," which enibrace
every mode of disposiug or atteinpiiiig
to dispose of a fitrged instrument.
VVatermau's Archibold Criminal Prac
tice anti Pleaduigs, 547, 26. The words
of our statute are, " alter or pulilisli as
true," and are not a niisprint, for they
occur first in the act of 1818, aud are re
peated iu the Revisetl Statutes of 1856
and 187U. It was hence cout-euded by
the deieiidaut's counsel that the Legis
lature had uotmade the actcharged to
have bet-n tloue by him a ciiiik— the
charge being, " uttering ami publishing
as true"—and tliat the crime as laid in
the inforniatiou, and for which he was
tried, is not the crimes cieated by the
statute. Tlie statute used the woid
alter. The iuformation lias utter. Tlie |
statute uses Ihe disjunctive, alter or i
ptiblish, tlius making two crimes. The j
iuforniatiou lias tlie copulative utter I
and pubiish, tlius descrihmg oue offéuse. ■■
1'lie prosecutiou is based on sectiou 833 ;
ltevised Statutes, aud the word utter \
is not used iu it, while it is etnpioyed iu
the next sectiou, iu rclatiou to the iu- j
teut iu raising paper securities, aud is
used iu sectiou 835 for creating anothei |
and distiuct offéuse, tlius—" whoever
shall utter or teuder iu payiueht," etc.
I he two words would appear to have
been euiployed iutentionally aud it was
urged, both iu the oral and printed ar
gument, that tlie words " utter and pub
lish," used in tl e iuformation as de
scriptive of tlie crime, do not charge
the crime either of uttering or publish
mg defined by the statute. In
words, the statute made if. a crime to j
alter the record, aud the defeudant was ;
uot charged with tliat. The statute ;
also made it a crime to pubiish as true;
otlicr i
au altered record aud the defeudant
was uot charged with tliat, but with
uttering aud publishing, etc. The act
ot uttering is separate aud distinct from
«-ïtlier ot the uthels, aud uutess the
plintse "utter aud pubiish" meaus le
gaily the saine as the single word " pub'
lish," aud desiguates the sarne act, the
offéuse charged iu the iuformation bas
no existeuce. If the draughtsiuau ol
ilie Hilonuation had the statute before
• liui, he mest have iuteuded the word
utter, used by him conjunctively vvitli
pubiish, as expressing ouly what the
latter word expresses by itself; but Ic
gally, that is uot true. as the law writers
all teacli. We did not give this objec
tiou of the defendaut's couusel a place
in our former opiniou, because amotig
the iwenty-seveu biils of exception,
and the assigument of errors additioiial
thereto, the two on w'hich we rested our
decisiou were conclusive of the invali
dity of the proceedings.
That the crime sluuiid have been
charged to have been committed by the
defeudant under eolor of his office is to
our miiids a uecessity. No oue but the
returning officers had auy power, mis
siou or authority to coinpile canvass or
pubiish the returns of electious. Tlie
couipiiatiou by auy other persons, and
its publicatiou, couid produce uo legal
cousequelice. All persons are presiuned
to know that the publicatiou of the re
sult of au eleetion by any others thau
tlie Returning Board was null and void
legaliy, aud heuce it was legally im
possible that such publicatiou should
deceive, injure or defraud auy oue, aud
since the crimiual act must not ouly iie
doue with iutent. to defraud, but must
be legally capable of effectiug the fraud,
it must be charged to have been done
by virtue of aud iu tlie capacity of tlie
returniug officer. We ara asked in tlie
brief if four presideuts of liauks had
appropriated largo suins of moiiey to
ïuduce the returning officers to make
uecessary alteratious iu the tigures, and
after the alteratious had been made
and the result chauged, they had eaused
them to be published, would uot they
be puuishabie 1 Uuquestionably, if we
understand it to be assumed tliat the
publicatiou is made iu the name ami
under the authority of the returning
officers, because there is another statute
that applies to those who procure to be
talsely made etc. But that i» withiu
the Attoruey General 1 » imaginary ease
and not ours. We supposed a case
where it is uot alleged or charged, and
therefore not to be preteuded that tlie
published document bore the certificate
of the 4'eturuiug officers, but ouly that
of four bank presidents. It is unde
niable that such publicatiou would not
be criminal under our statute for the
reasous we then gave. We stated that
case to show that it was of the essence
of the offéuse of uttering and publish
iug faise eleetion returns under the sta
tute that the publishing should be made
by persous having authority aud capa
city under the law to make if, and
therefore it was essential that the in
foimation should contain an averment
of that authority and capacity, and was
fatally detective without it. Its omis
§;ojj couid uot bc supplied by the court.
It is a matter or history that the act of
the defendaut wluch actuaily constitu
ted his crime was done in his official
capacity as a member of the Returning
Board, ,, ny was ït inac ine cauvas
sing and publishing of tlie vote to be
Uiade by him and hts co-returning offi
cèrs been me the object of public aux
iefy, and when made became the sub
ject ot' public eondemnation ? If four
private persous had done what they
did, and then pnblislted as eleetion re
turns whatever might have been in eon
forinity to tiieir wishes, would not tlie
act have been treated with derision,
aud couid it have produced any effect
legally or otherwise? Is it not appa
fContinued on Fourtb Page.]
Proceedings of tbc Police Jury.
OPELOUSAS, April 8th, 1878.
The Police Jury met pursuant to atfjournmeut.
Present: R- H. Eittell, President; A. Guidrr.
9. Haas and B. E. Clark.
There being no quorum present the Police
Jury aujourned untll to-morrow at 10 o'elock \ vt.
' Tuesday, April 9th, 1878 .
The Police Jury met pursuant to adjournnient.
Present : R. H. Eittell, President; B. E. Clark,
*' , 8a . vo ? D 7 P ' öaiZHn > 8. Haas, E. Dubuisson
and A. Outdry.
The minntes of the last-meeting were read
and approved.
On motton of Mr. Duhuisson, Resolved. that
in aceordauce with act No. 92 of the Legislature,
approved Match ltth. 1878, the tax collector he
and 1 » hereby directed to extend on the parish
tax roll the sum of six miils on the dollar on all
taxable property in the incorporated town» in
this parisli, saitt tax when eollected. to be paid
in the Parish Treaaury, and apportjoueJ to the
criminal expenses for the parish.
Onmotionof Mr. Haa 3 , Resolved, that t, e
sum of twenty-five dollars be and is hereby :in
propriated, payable out of any money in the
treaaury, not otherwise appropriated, to the
President to re-iraburse him for tli&t ainouut
^aid by Ma for legal advieft,
The jiet
ition of iiumeri
>ns cili/ens of t
he Al
1 was read. asl
ring for lin* fo!
cliange in
1 tlie public roa
d. to-wil : To lea
ve Hu
river roai
1 at til» latte !>
et ween .5. A. 11
and .1. X.
Oden. runiiiug
sotith to the 1
and ot
Ml'. A. Se
off, thema* we.
■t on the iitu- h<
Mr. S»ott
and the tinsol
il lot ol' the es)
tate nf
Mrs. M. M. (iordon tlie ,
lint between Mr
. Kon
an.l land
mvned hv Mi*
». M. Ford
ami , 1 .
West tm 1 i
1 lt strikes Bn\
on f 'nrrent. th
nee 1 o
keiqi tlie i
same road to I
ainlknei's X'eny
. as It
now stam
O 11 mot
ion of Mr. Dubt
tissim. Resolve,]
1 . tliat
the ahovi
;* petition be
e ra n teil. and th
at the
changes 1
ie made in tuei
irdance with sta
of the roa
1 ! ordinanee.
On nm:
tiou of Mr. s
avov, Resolved
. that
t.* Bideandeaii
he and is livrei
h.v an
Vhot'izcd :
!0 change tlie
pnhlic road 11
iliiui nf Mr.
on tlii- i!i'
Al.Hl» l>. Fnliti-liiit.
ui a »t' ti:» i omi ni'iliu n
ZiOi. !:•■ olve/', tb 'T \
; bi'ichv iinili.ii i/.»il
ml runniij>r tlirnnsb
» 1 I liis mul Riflmvd ;
onliiin o wilU K»»tiiin i
don ot Mr. I!
1 Tlmt tli» Bol i,
toi-i'dimr tlie fimi
ried. uid»ss ui'ni
liajoi-ity iu uliii
'In e Jnrors ol
cliao»» rh» pulil
!m;d. o. tli» lin» li»fsv.-»ii his mul Rirhm-d mid
Q >ih» »;ui land. in a»»oi'di!ii»o witii s»»tion » ot
til» roiitl ordiitiiii»».
A fonnmtt»» of th» S»lmo| Board . f tliojim isii
of »t. l.iindry Wiiifod UI'OO til» Boli»» .Jttri . at»
iri)U»stcd tiioin to !»v.v a ta\ of nvt
scliool |iurjtoB»N. what! ou lootton ot
it was uitat itnousiy r»so!v»i
Jury r»ft! 8 i' tidi'vy ittn ta.x »
treil and a balt miils now !»
tbr wrirtrn appliration of a t
of iitr taNpavors of tlt» jiarif .1
To tbr Hou. tbr President and 1
tbr parish of Sr. I.andrv
ymdd i-i'snec
Graf !»tn»i _Your prtitioners
fully ïrpresriit that tbr poli i» rond h-adin:
from Washinyion to Grand Prairie, itas li»»i
eiosed withont aothorin from vuur Honoral |.
body. and tlia' said ro.-id itas t,»,. n nr»l»>- »d h
tlie road OM I-Srer. Voor potitiooers wottiil t. s
pretfoll.v ask tlmt -aiil ohstrnet ions ti» r»mo\ ■ »
and tli.it tbr road be puf iu order for the itse o
the public, and we will ever pray A-».
S vroed hv :!0 f'tfizei'H.
On mot ion of Mr. Dillutisson. Resolved. tha'
tbr petitiou !.<- grantnl. and tliat til» R»a.'
Ovi-rseer ti» and is bereiiy m.stroeted to worl
said road.
Fbe Polier Jury resolved tiiemselves into a
oommittee of tbr winde and prnrc»d»d to ex
amine tlie vonebers in tin- hands of tlt» Paris!
Treastirer, for tlie moniesjiaid hv liim sinee tin
eaneellation on tlu- lotli of D»»»mli> r. 1877
wberettpon Mr. Savo.v rep.orted tiiat thev luid
countert the vouchers presen'rd hv tlie Trens
ui-er, amoimting to foitrteeii Ihonsand rltr»,'
bundred attd eisriify-two 231100 dollars, wittel
ainomit eorres]mnded with tlie entries ou his
books, and he moved tliat the vmiebers h» om
celled. and tliat tlie Treastirer have a credit fot
tluit anioimt ou itis iiooks, earried.
i From ttiitotim of parisli taxea
received from collector
fl'imi7tb May. 1877 to date..«36,249 80
From aimnmt of parish taxes
delimpieut received from
the collector from 7tli oi'
May, 1877 to date.......... 2960 11
---- 39,209 91
From amoimt of parisli lieen
ses front eoilortorfroni 7tli
May, 1877 to date.......... 2562 tO
From amouiit received frotu
ot lier sources from 7tbMay
1877 to date..............221 70
Totnl grose receipts____
$11.991 11
Bess col lt*dors
mission retïi
hv him as s
M t •*
ment renderei
>11 taxes......
1,626 15
i.u heenses...
---- 256 25
$1.882 46
>40,111 71
April 2 1878—To b
da nee casli
011 hand bron
gilt to 11 CW
............. $16.5
By amount of part
sh w arrants
paid liv ilic tri
Hsttivr and
which have !*«*<
n examined
eounted and e
niceiicd by
the police jury
$39,946 6J
April 2—Balance 1 ,
ash ou luind
165 07

T certif.v tliat tbc al
statement from the ito
$40,111 71
e. is u true and eorrecl
s of fiie parisli.
_ Parish Treasurer.
Opelousas La., 2d April, 1878.
The Treastirer liaviug taken tlie oath re
quired by sectiou 2845 nf the Revisetl Statutes
of 1870, ou motton of Mr. Dulmtsson, Resolved
that wheieas tlie Treastirer ot' tiie, parisli of st.
Landry bas this day p esented his anima! state
ment of minnes received and disbursed by him
to April 2d, 1878, said statement showing re
eeipt» of t'ortv tiumsaml one Ijutidred ami
eieven 71]!0i dollars, and disbursements o
thirty-niiie thousand nine huitdred and fm tj
six 61|!00 dollars, wirli balatice tniexpeiided o
oneiimidred and sixt.v-tive 071100 dollars, and
whereas said stateimmt aller a thormtgli aud
care,rul examtnalnm of itis liooks and voueiteis
lias heen lound eorreet iu every particular.
thereioreAie it resolved tliat said statement in
received. attd that th» Treastirer he authonze*
and dtreeled to turn over to the Clerk ot tin
Potten Jury tlieeaneel ed warrants now in he
iland», ainounting to tliirty-niue thousand nim
bundred and forty-six 64|ioo dollar».
On inotion tlie Police Jury adiomned anti! to
morrow at 10 o'clofk a. ai,
WicdxesdaY. April lOth, 1878.
The Police.Tury mei pursuant toadiouniini ut.
Present: K. H. Uttell. President: A. Guidix
E. Dnhni-soti, S. Haas, F. Savoy and B. E Clark i
O 11 motioti of Mr Haas. Resolved. that in ae i
cordaueo with act No. 30 or the extra session e !
the EegiKlature of 1877. tliat in lieit of t'ees am I
mileage,, the Justiees of the Peace. and ('otista
bies be paid a fixed salar.v for erimitatl iitisiues». t
Voting aye: Messrs. Haas, Savoy, Clark am ■
Giiidr.. j
Voting ntly: Mr. Duhuisson.
O 11 inotion of Mr. Clark, Resolved, that th. i
SJdariesof the Justiees of the Peace and t on 1
stables be tixed by wants, and that they tic al
lowed tlie lollowing aninuuts as an aiiuua.
salary, the same to lie paid quarterly:
" ..... " ..........$800 00
.......... soo 00
.......... 100 00
.......... 60 (H
.......... 30 00
.......... 12 i 0(
.......... 7 5 00
.......... 40 0(
.......... 35 00
.......... 50 00
.......... 20 00
.......... 40 00
.......... 40 00
.......... 25 00
.......... 25 00
. . - .......... -..„olved. that tin
salai les of the Coimtables iu the several wards.
be tixed at the same uitmunt as the Justiees el
the Peace.
On inotion of Mr. Savoy, Resolved, that the
aliove salaries shall take effect from tlie Xötli
day of April, 1878.
ou motion of Mr. Dubuisson, Resolved, that
the sum of one huitdred aud flfty dollars or so
reuen thereof as may be uecessary be aud is
hereby appropriated out of any money in the
treastiry, uot otherwise appropriated, to por
1 " P r,,(,t ' safe for tlie treasurer's olffce
ilte foliowing persous were appointed com
missioners for the. sale of uitbrandt d stock •
l»t Witrd, L. E. L; tel!. E. P. Dejean, Charles
Hollier, G. Peck and Godl'rey Dupre.
2 I Ward, Aleck Miller, J. Frozard anc( P, D.
' E. S. Tavior____
2 d
' L. Dariiy.......
• A, L.Ditrio.....
41 Ir
' W. X'. Jackson
' Win. 1 'tirley____
' h. .1 . Kcjt......
' D. tpiirk.......
H. burin......
6 th
' J.J. Hieks.....
' J. Bacon........
' J. D. C'ttrrie____
8 th
' L. Pit re........
' S. ( 'art,.........
1 W. F. Sfakes ..
Onmotionof Mr. Haas
f'\Ward. N. C. Dpvilliers and Andre
4th Want. Jules Godeau, T. A. Dunbar and
w. c. Onruon.
5th Ward, Robt. Tate. Ali'red Stagg, Louis
8 . Haw, . 1 . L. Fontenot, Je.
6 th Ward, J. P. Landeum, Eli Clark. Wm.Ran
dall, Eliuus Campbell, H Savant, Dr. J E
I Fontl not 11 ' Bass > Wui Teal aud F.
J«^iHÏmf»^t ,?0!Ue,10t ' J ' B ' Tate and
n2ï!Ji? r u!ui Wl11, Anf L*epont, Houdt
i»«! m' 1 lJ (WIl , e Hiclmnl, Onezipe Ledoux.M.
I nul hoiume ami Ciesaf Fru^e.
Pnv 1 Sl'ti'r ,alle - D Beruard, David
R %' ' v ' ,n , McFarlanp and Fred. Areeueaux.
mfi 6 /"'ib'ring ehauges and appointmeuts was
ïuiuie 111 Koan Overseers :
Frauois Gitillory vice XI. Deshotels.
J. D. Andrus vice H. Yomig.
Xsaac Hayes vice R. E. Sloane.
H. Huiuliie vice O. A. Bouillon.
Alphonse Reed vice nucoudre Dupre
o n,,x ^b'nOpelousas aud Washington
load tf> Bayou Mana Giwjuaut.
Mr. Haas snbimtte'1 the lollowing ordinanee.
adopted atter bt ' ng read was «nauimimsly
An ordinanee prohibiting tlie» sale, barter or
excliange of an- iutoxieatiiig liijtmrs or mer
ehundisequSuitda.v, w:thiu thcltmits of the
parisli of st. Lawbv:
Skotion 1 . Be. it ordained by the Police Jury
ofthcpailKli of «t Ratidry, tiiat in accordanee
With the powers cimft rreil by a»t No. 84 , regu
lar session of the Legislatiiré of Louisiaua, ses
sion of 1878. approved 'arch 13fh, I87S, all per
sons withiu the iimits of the parish of St. Ran
dry, including those witiiiti ali incorporated
towna and, viliages, withiu tbc Iimits of the
parish, with ihe f iiowing exeeptions, are (>ro
hibited from selüng givi g. nartyiiug or ex
ehanging any intoxicating liquors >r iuerehau
dise of an.v tiescrijttiop 011 Sitnday.
Sec. 2 Be it further ordained, &c., tlmt the
follmving and none other are exempted ft om
the (irovisitms of this ordinanee, vz- Mer
chants ie tlie sale only of snelt arrieles as are
uecessary lor fjie XuuitU of the dead and in the 1
! said punisl
j indictment
, eompetelit
! sc:c. 4 B.
j nanet* shall
jeet matter
O 11 motioi
Monday, M;
Attest: O
l'l'OCOrd i 11
The Bonn
sale of TOcdieinea. where their place of boeinees
iasituated more tban eigbt miles from any ü
eetised drug store. 2d. Keepers of drug «torst
in so far »s to permit tbern to flll presoriptloB*
of iieensed pltysieians and to «ell drojf»
medieines only on said day. Sd. Koepel* «f
bakolies I'or tlie solt- purpose of msking m 4
selling bread. Itli. Keepers of public autrket*.
for tlie sale of fresb meats. fisb, vegetahtes **4
fruit» or Bellers ot Üsb, vegetables, fruit# n|
Sec. 3. Be it further ordained, &c., thst i my
person violating tliis ordinanee shall be guilty
ot' a misdenieaiior and shall be punlsfced by *
tin» not exceediitg two bundred dollars and Mt
les» titan tift.y dollar» or imprisonnient ia tks
(larisbjail uot les» titan 30 day» nor mor# tkma
co day» or both said tiue and imprisonmest at
th» diacretion ot tlie court. One-bnlf *f aaM
tiue to be paid to tlie infonuer and the ofkw
tid into the treastiry of the parl«k,
ment and tiue to be enforeed by
or iuformation before any oonrt ét
it further enaeted that this ordl
iro into i ffeet on and after lt# pf»
iml all ordinanee» on the same #nb
ire bereiiy repen led.
t the Police Jury adjonrned nntö
iv tith, 1878.
lï. II. RITTE LX,. President.
Mavo, Clerk.
Monday, Apri! 8 th, 1B78.
Police of tlie town of Opeloo#»#,
a caII of tlie President. Present:
President, Mt-asrs. C. Mavo.
X. Kaler, Euiile Donato, and
of tlie last meeting» were read
e appointed to exatuine. th{
eet of subtil t ti.e foilowinu
We tlie lindersi^lied i
)'Xamine tl.e ia.ok» ami
tier and Collector, w«
iiat we have eaietnllj
iiltd tliem em reet. am
nets tliat were iu tlu
report :
April 8th. 1878.
I 4,1 tl
e iind to lie
Itloli with tin
lllll :
colt 1
On inotioti tb» ropoi
>p|iro\ed and > rderei
iiiliute» and luit tl.e
i ikI Co lector li» i ance
T'lii- saine C' mmil ter
i'iiiinittee apiiointed to
Vouchers ol the Treas
ld resjieetl'ully report,
mim-d the saine and
• eanei lied the von
nd» of the 'lreasurrr.
it of t e Treasurer
o ï eeoniineiid it» ptibli
of tlie Board,
ttiillv snmbitted,
W. (,. BLEI.,
of tin- i ommittee wu#
to la* »|)t-i ml upon the
■oiidu ot tlie l ieasurer
dsoreported tttvorably
ipon tin- lollowing elttims '
. C. Dtison jail tee»..... .................. $19 o#
•M. ThompKon stationary Ar............ 1 99
Wlolph Stagg registratiou of voters of the
Corporation............................. 26 0 #
. May o drugs.............................. 4 75
'. M. Thompson remm ing dead auiuiais
and hutying panper.................... 10 0 *
I. W. Jaeksou aeverttsiug naiias of delln
ijtii ut tax payers....................... U m
tv. S. lüy lor just iee of peace lees........ . | 30
On motton the board adjonrned sine. die.
JAMES RAY, President
Attest: O. V 00 RHIKS, Clerk.
Procet-dingM of the Board of Poliee of
the Ton tt of Opelousas.
Monday, Aptil 8 th, 187».
Tltis being tlie day appointed for a meeting
'f tlie Board of Poliee of the Town of Ope
'ousas. tlie lollowing members of said Board,
clected 011 tlie lst instant, at per certificate of
l'.'leetion and oath ol office recorded and ou file
ut tlie office of tlie Clerk of the District Court
"f the Parish of St. Landry, were present, to
wit: Dr. James Ray, Vietor J.astrapes, Cha*.
v. Kuier, 1'. J. Lefebvre, C. Mayo, Emile Do
iato, and Wm. G. Bell.
Dr. James Ray prestdtng.
Git motion Dr. James Ray was elected by
.teelamafion as President of the Board of Polic«
•f the Town of Opelousas.
On motion of Mr. Ettler, Resolved, that th®
salaries of officers for this term, he and they
ae hereby tixed the same as the last term.
There being 110 applicants for anv of the
offices under this Board.
On motion, all the officers of the oid Board
" ere re-elected by acclamation to their same
On motion Resolved, that the bonds of the
Treasurer and Collector be fixed tlie same as in
On motion Dr. James Ray, Emile Donato, and
Wm. G. Bel! were appointed Street C'ommi#
On motion the Board ac()ourned to meet on
Friday the 19th inst.
JAMES RAY, President.
Attest: O. Voorhies, Clerk.
l,ist Letten
Remaining in tlie Post Office at Opelousas, La.,
April lst, 1878. and if not taken out befor#
May lst, 1878, will lie sent to the Dead
Letter Office at Washington D. C.
Uitoine John Bt
Bataille Monsieur
BosticK Mary miss
iryant mrs Xieholas
Carr.cre Oniile
Dupre. Alcxandro
Erin M
Eltiqne Syh estre
tuidry mrs Harriet
'lawkins Jositth E
Jolmsou (Boyd) Jitn
Kaspriet Manuel 2
Lilon Louis
Louis mine Clementine 3
Manso mrs I.eonard
Marree Jim
Mims Joint H
Morcin Felix
Payne Narcisse
Pierre Gustave
Powelis Charley
Spyler Jules
Thomas Zeuon
BAII.F.Y—BURLEXGH—At the residence of
the lindes tatlier near Grand Coteau April lOth
878. h.v Rev. C. A. Frazee, Mr. John M. Balley
tud Miss Sarah E. Buricigh,
ir the res dence of Mr.
\lick Uurlciglt, near Graml coteau, April lotb,
878. liy Rev. c. A- Frazee, Mr. J. 8. Balley and
Lala Balley,
No 1976.
By virtue of a wri of flen facla* issued
>ut of tlie lmnorahle i >-ish Court. in and for
1 liG l>iii'isli ot 8t. I.andi v. in the above entitlod
■uit. and to me directed I jyiü proceed to seU
lt public aiietion, to tlie lughesr bidder, at the
'mirthouse of said parisli, in the town of Ope
oa.sas. 011 SATUKDAY. the 271 h da.v of April.
878. at 11 o'elock a. til., the foiluwiug describert
iroperty, to-wit:
< )nc enttou giu.
. 1 ,, o, „ c. C. DUSON,
a l''Sheriff of the Parish of Kt. Landry.
No. 3739.
Whereas, Adelaide Reed, widow, of the parish
ofSt. Landry, tutrix of tlie estate of Last ie
Kosa. fleeeased, having filed a tableau and dis
tribntioii oFJund of said estate, aceontpanled by
lier petition praying for the liomologatkm et
tlie name.
And whereas the prayer of said petition hac
Luie Uth^lfT Jy Un ' ,r ' lür of C0!,rt ' hearing dat®
Now, therefore, notice is liereby given to all
persous mterested to make opposition to said
tableau m writing at wy office 111 the town «f
Opelousas, withui the time required by law why
the said talileau should not be homologated and
confinued. 6
apl 13 - 1 ,Ig JAMES °* ciia ^«ERE, Clerk.
Estate of joseph ztncourt fontenot
Whereas, Aeqnedne! Fontenot of the parish of
or St. Landry, administrator of tlie estate of
Joseph Zincourt Fontenot. deeeased, having
tlled 11 tableau of elassitication of deftts of
said estate, aeeompanied by his petition praying
for the homologation of the same.
And, whereas. the praj-er of said petition ha#
been granted by an order of court, hearing date
April 9th, 1878.
Now, therefore notice is liereby given to all
persous interested to make opposition to said
tableau in writing at my office in the town of
Opehmsasas. witlnn the time required by law,
why the said tableau should not ue homologated
and eouflrtiied.
apl 13-ldg
Ktti'ays Taken Up.
By the iituïersigped in Bellevu», one black
cmv brauded (facsimile or brand at this offioo;>
and ono brown cmv brauded UB. The owaer
can have them by coming forward proving
property aud paying cost.
apl 13-4t NARCISSE BIHM.
Toten M"rinting!
Notice is hereby giveu that sealed proposals
"or publishing tlie minntes and ordiuaneeu ot
tlie Board of Poliee of tlie town of Opelousas,
will be received at tlie office of the President of
said Board, nntil the 23d day of April 1878 at 13
o'eiock M. The contract to be given to th#
lowest and best bidder. The Board resuming
the right to reject auy and a!l huls.
April 13-21 JAMES RAY. President.
If*. tl. Hobertson%
Opelousas, 1,0,

xml | txt