urrrrmn STATES v. Mornov. 21;
evidence satisfies you that he had no fraudulent or criminal motive in
so doing, but that his act was merelythe 1·esult of inadvertence or ig-
norance of his official duties, or ignorance of the manner in which those
duties ought to be performed.
The mere writing of a person’s name in the registration book by the
registration officer is in itself no offense, if the person whose name is
written appears before the registration officer and applies for registration,
or takes the oath, and expressly or by necessary implication requests the I
officer to write his name. It is immaterial who writes the name. In
other words, gentlemen, the offense laid in this indictment consists in ·
the act of entering names of persons on the registration books who do
not appear before the oiiicer, or applyqfor registration or take any oath
such as _the law requires. If persons came before this defendant and _ .
gave false names and places of residence, and applied for registration un-
der such assumed names orfrom false ; places of residence, and the de-
fendant was imposed upon by such persons and in good faith adminis-
tered the oath and placed.their_names on the registration books as qual-
iiied yoters, and in that waysomc of the namesmentioned in the indica
ment were placed upon, the books, then the court directs you that you
cannot convict the defendant by reason of any of his acts in respect to `
' such names. 2 If all the names in the indictment, as the defendant has
testified, are names that were given to the defendant by persons who act- `
ually came before him and gave such names and their residences, and
tookthe oath and applied for registration, and the defendant accepted
them and placed their names on the books in good faith, that is, hehe-
ing ignorant of, any wrong-doing on the part of those persons making the
application, (if there was any wrong-doing on their part,) then you must
acquit him.
You can take the case. r ,
· The juryébrought in ayverdict of guilty. , . V
A motion for a new trial was then filed, and the following opinion was
delivered thereon:
` BREWER, J., (orally.) While this case was not tried before me, yet
I was present and heard the argument yesterday, which was before both
of us, and the single question presented is one of law, so thatl take
part in the`.decision of that question, which is this: the record fails to
show an arraignment and plea before the trial. It has been repeatedly
decided by the supreme court of this state that a record which fails to
show an arraignment and plea discloses such error as compels the grant-
ing of a new trial by that court. It is claimed that that line of decision
expressing the settled law of this state is controlling in this court, and
that we must therefore, following it, set aside this verdict. It is worthy of
mote, in the first place, that while that is the settled law of Missouri, it is