New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-11-29
ORLEANS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1870.

duty imposed upon them outside OF their
discretionary powers as liquidators Of the
floating debt. It is no case for mandamns.
Judgment accordingly.
Contested Election Cases.
Thomas L. Maxwell VS.. C. s. Sauvinet.-
In this case defendant has filed an answer
and exception in the Eighth District Court
to the demand of plaintiff for the office of
Civil Sheriff of the parish OF Orleans, to
the following effect:
That this court is without jurisdiction in
matters concerning elections by the people.
ratione materia, unless such jurisdiction is
conferred by statute, and only to the ex-
tent mentioned in such statute; that there is
no such statute in existence and even if
there were such a statute authorizing this
court to exercise jurisdiction in such mat
tiers of elections by the people, the funda-
mental rule is that the facts under which
the jurisdiction over the case depends must
be set forth in the petition.
The number or names of illegal, fraudu-
lent or intinidated voters not being stated.
the number or names of legal registered
voters fraudulently rejected and the num-
Der and names Of legal voters fraudulently
excluded from the registration and ballot
box not being given in the petition nor COM
municated to the respondent, it is impossi-
bic for the court to ascertain the ground of
its jurisdiction, and whether such alleged
frauds are Of such Importance as to change
the result of the election. The jurisdiction
OF the court must be ascertained by the
reading of the petition ITSELF and not ali
umde, before the court can entertain the pc
titiOn.
1t is argued that the jurisdiction being
specially statutory, it must be proved before
the judge can act, the presumption being
that the court is without jurisdiction over
any ceStum genus cdNsaTrin. which does not
belong to judicial of the power or to the
ordinary jurisdiction Of the court.
Respondent asks the court, before making
any other pleas or exceptions, to decide
upon the question Of jurisdiction. sr.7 =
In case the exception should be Overruled,
defendant further excerpts that. under the
commission of the Governor he holds a
public office or franchise within the State,
tO-wit: the office Of Civil Sheriff of the
parish of Orleans, to which he was elected
by the people; that any litigation instituted
to deprive him of his office and give it to
the plaintiff must be prosecuted under the
intrusion act. sst.i,
Respondent said that it was in the power
of the plaintiff to, discover the frauds
alleged, and to have the perpetrators pun
ished. That it was the duty of the plain
tiff, who was Sheriff, to have prevented
these frauds; that he acquiesced in them by
his inactiOn, and participated in them, by
which he is forever debarred from making
complaint OF any injury he may have suf-
fered.
Respondent proceeds to argue the case at
length, and his exceptions are, in fact, a
brief, stating the whole case.
John TObin VS.. j. A. Masicot.-In this
matter, which is contest for the office of
Sheriff of the First District Court, or court
having jurisdiction in criminal matters, the
respondent, by his attorney, A. P. Field,
has filed exceptions to the following effect:
That the petition AYERS no legal and suffi-
cient cause OF action; that the first obliga-
ton does not specifically set forth what par
ticular acts of illegalty were committed by
the State Registrar, under the sixth, seventh,
second sections OF the act to provide for the
revision and correction of the lists of regis
trati0n of voters, etc. -
1t is averred that the allegations Of Ile-
gality are not specifically set forth, but are
uncertain and insufficient, and the respon-
dent is not bound by law to answer.
Therefore, for want of q sufficient petit
ton respondent prays that his exceptions
be sustained, and if they should be annulled
he pleads the general issue.
Z. A. FOrtier vs. Auguste Bruck.-In this
case, which is a contest for the office of con-
stable of the Fourth Justices Court, the
respondent has fled exceptions substan-
tally as follows:
That the allegations in plaintiffs petition
are too vague to permit the introduction Of
evidence Hereunder, and to enable respond
ent to safely and intelligently answer
thereto. e
That the allegations in the petition and al
legged notice are inconsistent and contra
dictory; that plaintiff having alleged frauds
in the election, cannot therefore claim to
have been legally elected himself.