The Opelousas journal. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1868-1878, 1869-10-09

THE CASE DISMISSED.
Wiley, J., read the opinion of the
court.
Plaintiff alleges that at the April cleo
ton of 1868 he was duly elected Sheriff
of the parish of St. Landry; that subse-
q~uently viz: on the 29th July he enter
cd on the duties of his Office, after being
duly commissioned, and after giving
bond and being qualified according to
law. He alleges that since then to wit:
on the 18th of July 1869, the defendant
James NJ. Thompson, pretending that
he has been appointed and commission
ed by the Governor, as Sheriff of said
parish, has illegally entered into, and
usurped the office of Sheriff of the par
ish Of St. Landry, and unlawfully exer-
cises the duties thereof; that the petit
toner has given information to George
w. Hudspeth Dist. Atty, and to Thos.
H. Lewis Dist. Atty. pro. tenn, of the
intrusion and usurpation. and has reques-
ted them to institute suit against said
Thompson, under Act No. 1856 passed
in 1868, but that they have refused to
do so. He prays that the said Hudspeth
and the said Lewis, in their official
capacities, be ordered to institute and
carry or, by joining your petitioner in
this suit against said Thompson, the
proceedings provided for by Act No. 156
Of the Acts Of the Legislature of 1863"
He farther prays that judgment be rem
dered in his favor, recognising him as
Shrrif of St. Landry, and decreing the
said Thompson to be an usurper and
intruder, and that he have judgment
against him for $1,000.
This was evidently inteaded as a
proceeding under the Act No. 156,
known as the Intrusion Act" Its
purport was to give the plaintiff posses.
sion of the Sherif's Office, and to have
the incumbent Thompson elected as an
intruder and usurper.
On referring to the Act in question,
We find hat actions of this character can
only be brought in the name of the State,
by the District Attorney o the District
Attorney pro tempore, and in the parish
0! Orleans by the Attorney General.
The second section of said Act makes
it the duty of the District Attorney, OF
the District Attorney pro tempore of the
parish where the case arises, to bring
suit against the offending party, when
so required to do.
The fourth section thereof provides
that when the action is brought on the
relation or information of any person
interested, the name Of such person
shall be joined with the State as plaintiff.
The State feeling an interest in her
officers, and desiring that none Of her
offices shall be filled by usurpers and
intruders, has enacted this law which is
very plain, requiring, proceedings OF this
character to be brought in the name tf
the State, but permitting a person in
terested to" b joined with the State as
plaintiff"
Although no objection has been made
by the defendant to the form of the
action, we cannot permit the plaintiff to
stand in judgment, in an action which
the law declares shall be brought only
in the name of the State. 1t was made
the duty of the District Attorney and
the District Attorney pro tempore to
institute the action when so required:
if they failed or refused to do SO, as it
appears they did, the plaintiff could
have applied to the District Court for a
writ of Mandamus to compel them to
discharge their duty.
In the case of Wicklife vs.. Delasizc
81 An. p-,we held that a proceeding
under the Intrusion Act" (Act No.
156 of the session Of 1869 could only
be brought i'll the name Of the State.
We still adhere to that view Of the case.
1t is therefore ordered that the judg-
ment appealed from be avoided and
annulled, and it is now ordered that
suit be dismissed at plaintiffs costs
in both conrts.