Pou v. Ellis
| Decision Date | 25 November 1913 |
| Parties | POU v. ELLIS, Sheriff. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Record, Escambia County; Kirk Monroe, Judge.
Habeas corpus by F. R. Pou against A. C. Ellis, as Sheriff, etc. Judgment for defendant, and petitioner brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Section 3483, Gen. St. 1906, first enacted in 1832, which provides a penalty for the falsification of documents belonging to any public office in this state by any person, or for procuring such an offense to be committed, is not limited in its operation to such public documents as were provided for by law when the act was originally passed but applies to all public documents made such by law since that time and now recognized as public documents, such as the registration books of Pensacola.
To illegally and corruptly add the names of persons to the registration books who are not qualified to register is to 'falsify' a record, within the meaning of the statute.
COUNSEL R. P. Reese, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.
T. F West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Cen., for defendant in error.
An information was filed in the court of record of Escambia county at the July term, 1913, against the plaintiff in error and four others, on which a capias was issued, and the plaintiff in error was arrested. On his petition alleging that he was in custody and deprived of his liberty without authority of law, the writ of habeas corpus was issued. The sheriff answered that he detained the petitioner under the authority of the capias and attached as an exhibit to his return the information on which the capias issued. There was a motion to quash the return, which was overruled, and the petitioner was remanded to custody. A writ of error was allowed to this court, returnable on the 14th of October 1913.
The information contains 14 counts. The first count charges that Frank Maura, Frank R. Pou, Wallace G. Kennedy, John G. Rupert, and George Andrews, on the 3d day of April, 1913, at and in Escambia county, did then and there agree, conspire, combine, and confederate together to corruptly falsify a record, to wit, the registration books of the city of Pensacola, Fla., by then and there agreeing, conspiring, and confederating together to corruptly and falsely place and enter upon said registration books, as qualified voters of the city of Pensacola, the names of persons who did not appear before the registration officer of said city to take the oath as required by law and the names of persons who were not eligible to register as voters of Pensacola by reason of their not possessing the qualifications to enable them to be registered as such voters, and to corruptly and falsely make upon said registration books entries that persons appearing therein as voters were exempt from poll taxes for the years 1911 and 1912, when in fact said persons were liable for poll taxes for said years, and to corruptly and falsely make upon said registration books entries that persons thereon as qualified voters had paid poll taxes for the years 1911 and 1912, when said persons had not in fact paid poll taxes for said years, against the form of the statute, etc.
The second count charges that the same persons on the same day did agree, conspire, combine, and confederate together to fraudulently falsify certain books and proceedings belonging to a public office within this state, to wit, the registration books, and the registration and exemption certificates of and belonging to the office of the registration officer of the city of Pensacola, Fla., by then and there agreeing, conspiring, etc., to falsely place and enter upon said registration books, as qualified voters of the city of Pensacola, the names of persons who did not appear before the registration officer to take the oath prescribed by law and the names of persons who were not eligible to register, etc.
The third count is as follows: 'And your informant aforesaid prosecuting as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Russ, No. 1D99-4378
...The legislature did not define "falsify" as used in the statute, and only one Florida case has addressed its meaning. In Pou v. Ellis, 66 Fla. 358, 63 So. 721 (1913), the defendant was charged under a predecessor statute with falsifying voter registration books by entering names of people a......
-
State Ex Rel. Marshall v. Petteway
...book for election district No. 3, city of Tampa. This court has held such a charge sufficient and a violation of the statute. Pou v. Ellis, 66 Fla. 358, 63 So. 721. In so far section 7492 applies to the registration of electors for a city primary election, it is made a part of the primary e......
- Buffum v. Lytle