The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-11-26
City Intelligence.

The CONTESTED ELECTION FOR sHrRIYy.-We ubjoin
in full the decision of Judge LaIue rendered yesterday
case OF the contested secton for Sheriff of this Parish We
consider dispositions well taken. and calculated to
prevent any future contest on similar grounds.
=. FIRST DISTRICT COURT NEW ORLEANS.
MandsvAs uarigrv James r. Frere-The pe,i
third day i month Of Sos ' $751; .a
we o1 Ss o.s Of Sheriff
me % tor the same ose contests the election
ms.ons Of election did the votes in the
for By law that the commissioners and clerk, of
and qualified to vote erein required by Tor these
reasons The votes Of said precincts should be- and
the Of the Parish of Orleans Tor the Office OF shs and
10 oe entitled 70 exercise the functions and receive the smou
To this petition the defendant has fled an exception upon
IN sb,.apos admitting all the in The petit
on Of the contestant he has set forth of
sspts no 'ucen legal reason why his prayer should be
Il would have been agreeable me. and probably
more salts acory to all the parties having feeling interest
in thi, case, il had been at ubmed jury with
or s o Il 5. :n
OF The but the parties have chosen take different
to discharge the duties thu. imposed upon me-
Inc case as set forth in the pleadag and e'ucdatea By the
the Of the commissioners and clerks tenth
ss sas which Ct sy
formed in their official character and I'd Is The failure
manner clearly pointed out b. law su{Sient rsa
son to set aside he entire poll of said precincts
by the authorities applicable to all criminal and civil proceed
ngs no doubt, by any per.
son acquainted with even the elementary principles Of the
law There Is no doctrine more firmly settled than that the
acts Of persons exercising public functions who de deo
public Officers and apparently public officers of right shouId
pc maintained IN all case. where the public third parties
trne been carried all the decisions which have been made
on the point Of which, informed that the Courts have
even refused TO permit an enquiry into the of the Office
to ae In any case In which that should be call in
have DECIDED that the only of testing the qualification
Of the officer by direct action against himself This doc
time not only founded judicial decision. bat is me-
This might be illustrated by various cases which bsye
occurred the history Of urispudence as well as
in that OF foreign countries 1t is deemed 10 in
stance only one case which must be familiar almost every
the Constitution of this State the memhs,. of
the Legislature and all the officers Of State were renn,sd
g take an oath OF oce which oath did include the
hs Legislature which met after the adoption Of the Consu
ton Of 1915. and of the other officers Of The Stale who
entered upon their offices in 1885, did the oath TO up
that rhe Senators and Representative before M
and the members OF the several and All udciai
executive officers both Of the United States and OF ,he
several States. shall be bound by or Affirmation TO sup
port this Constitution; and the inst sect on of The
act OF June the tisIst OF the laws Of the Unitad
states pIsscnbes the particular form in which thai
ton Of the same act imperative that the officers named in
the Constitution shall take eh or afrnatou beore
ey proceed to execute the duties of their offices
ye can hardly be believed that senses
ana Iea null and void, because neither the member of the
nor the GOvefnor took that oath that
OF Cours OF Justice should be aside for similar
failure On the pan Of the Judges indeed the act OF
any pu9hc officers OF the State which public or third
pefsons had interest could be for the Of ths
formal oath on the part oil the otaoeB Il WA indeed ii.