Case ID: la_149/html/0675-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROVOSTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(90 South. 20)
    No. 24726.
    STATE v. OMES. In re OMES.
    (Oct. 13, 1921.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Indictment and information &wkey;>l6l(6) — In-formations amendable in matters of substance.
    A bill of information for violating Act No. Ill of 1890 by going, into a railroad coach reserved for white passengers, which did not show that accused was of the colored race, was properly allowed to be amended by inserting the words “a colored man” after accused’s name; for informations, unlike indictments, may be amended in matters of substance.
    2. Indictment and' information <s&wkey;IIO(l) — Information for going into white passenger’s coach held defective.
    A bill of information against a colored man for violating Act No. Ill of 1890 by going into a railroad coach reserved for white passengers, not alleging in words of the statute, or equivalent terms, that accused was a passenger on the occasion in question, or that he insisted upon going into the coach, held fatally defective.
    Bernard Ornes was convicted, of going into a railroad coach .reserved for white passengers, and applies for writs of certiorari and prohibition.
    Judgment set aside, information quashed, and accused ordered released.
    Loys Charbonnet, of New Orleans, for relator.
    Philip R. Rivaudais, of New Orleans, for the State.
   PROVOSTY, J.

The accused was found guilty and sentenced on a bill of information reading that he did—

“with force and arms * * * willfully and maliciously go into a coach of the N. O. Lower Coast Railroad train, which said coach was assigned by said railroad for white passengers, and did then and there occupy a seat in said coach among the white passengers riding on said train, contrary to the form of the statute of the state of Louisiana in such case made and provided, and against the dignity and peace of the same.”

The statute in question is Act 111 of 1S90, which, requires railroads to provide separate accommodations for the white and colored races, and which, in its section 2, says that—

“Any passenger insisting upon going into a coach or compartment to which by race he does not belong, shall be liable,” etc.

The bill of information not alleging that accused was a passenger, nor that he is of the colored race, nor that he insisted upon going into the coach assigned to the whites, accused moved to quash, on the ground that it charged no crime.

The district attorney moved to amend by inserting the words “a colored man” after the name of accused, and the court properly allowed this amendment to be made; since informations, unlike indictments, may be amended in matters of substance. State v. Terrebonne, 45 La. Ann. 25, 12 South. 315. But, after the amendment had been made, the information was still fatally defective, in that it did not charge in the words of the statute, or in equivalent terms, that the accused was a passenger on the occasion in question, nor that he insisted upon going into the coach in question; and hence did not charge a violation of said statute.

The case is here on certiorari.

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment herein be set aside; that the information herein be and is hereby quashed ; and that the accused be released without day.