Case ID: la-ann_38/html/0149-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pooeé, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 9659.
    Police Jury of East Baton Rouge vs. Wm. Hubbs, Clerk, etc.
    The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction ovéi* suit by mandamus to compel the clerk of a district court to give access to an employe of the police jury in his office for the purpose of transcribing mutilated archives, when the petition contains no moneyed demand, and the record fails to disclose any pecuniary interest exceeding $2000 in any of the parties to the suit. ,
    PPEAL from the Seventeenth District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge. Burgess, J.
    
      Beale & Buehner for Plaintiff and Appellant.
    
      Bobertson & Bussell for Defendant and Appellee.
   Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Pooeé, J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus to compel the defendant to giveaccess.to his office and its archives, to a person authorized- by contract with the police jury to transcribe portions of the archives which are mutilated.

The only jurisdictional allegation in plaintiff’s petition is that plaintiffs have an interest in the suit exceeding one hundred dollars; this may have been sufficient to give jurisdiction to the district court, but evi dently not sufficient to vest jurisdiction in this tribunal.

We find nothing in the record sufficient even to justify a strained supposition of jurisdiction over the case in this Court, and we are at a loss to conceive by what process of reasoning appellants may have been led to bring their appeal to this tribunal.

The question is entirely covered by the decision in the case of State ex rel. Police Jury of Livingston parish vs. F. W. Miscar, Sheriff et al. 34 Ann. 834, in which we refused to entertain an appeal in a case'involving the right of the police jury to compel the sheriff and the clerk of that parish to remove the archives of their respective offices from one place to another.

But it is useless to argue on a self-evident proposition.

The motion to dismiss based on our want of jurisdiction ratione material, is eminently proper, and it must be sustained.

It is, therefore, ordered, that this appeal be dismissed at appellant’s costs.