New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-28

nm tho 7fftoon hundrod shares Of said COM
pauy's stock, which was paid to McQuoid,
Malta 4. Co. IN accordance with and in
faith Of : resolution passed BY the board Of
direcfore Of said company, embarrassing said
transactions, on the twenty-ffth Of Nay,
That in accordance with resolutions Of
.a;d company they bound themselves to re-
imburse said stock before the first of
July, 1869, together with all the losses
and expenses that might be incurred by
petitioner furnishing the same, but n0twith-
standing said company wholly failed to re-
imburse petitioner for his said stock SO adj
vanced, on said first July, 1869, and has ne
elected and refused since TO make such re-
endorsement, although frequently asked to
do so. nm ~
That since the first of July, 1869. similar
shares of stock to those furnished by petit
toner have been sold upon the market in
New Orleans at forty-eight dollars per
share, and petitioner could have sold his
said one hundred shares, had it been reim-
bureed, at the same rate; and in cOnse-
quence Of their refusal to reimburse him in
the said stock advanced, he has suffered the
loss aforesaid of $500. Ess
Ex-MayOr Conway vs. the city of New
Orleans-In this suit, in which the plaintiff,
an ex-may0r of the city, sues for some $4,000
alleged to be due under an ordinance allow
ing 500 per month to the Mayor for special
police and charitable purposes, Judge Dib-
BE has given judgment Of $500 for police
money.
- "Banks - CoAeehouse-Suit Of MIR.
e6auvinet- Of Judge Dibble.
In the Eighth District Court yesterday,
Judge Dibble rendered the following de-
cisiOn: m ~, s-r
C. s. Sauvinet vs. j. A. Walker-This
suit for damages was instituted by the
plaintiff for the purpose of indicating his
civil rights, guaranteed by article thirteen
of the constitution, and sanctioned by the
law approved February 23.s4869, entitled
ian act to enforce the thir1 Eth article of
the constitution Of this STD, and to regu-
late the licences mentioned in said thir-
teenth article" r.f r-fafc la
The defendant in his answer prayed for a
trial by jury. A special jury was i'm
paneled, and ON the seventeenth of March,
1871, the case was submitted to them. They
failed to. agree and were discharged.
Thereupon the plaintiffs counsel moved
decide the case in compliance with section
two Of an act approved February q, 1871
entitled ian act to regulate the mode of
trying cases arising under the provisions of
article thirteen Of the constitution of Lou
isiana, or under any acts of the Legislature
to enforce the said article thirteen of the
said constitution and to regulate the
licenses therein mentioned" To this mo-
ton the defendants counsel objected, say
ing that the said law is unconstitutional.
The fact Of the mistrial was ordered to be
entered upon the minutes, the case was
taken under advisement, and time was
granted for the attorneys to file briefs upon
the question Of the validity Of the last
named statute. -. 81
That act provides that all cases brought
for the purpose of indicating, asserting or
maintaining the rights, privileges and immu-
mites guaranteed to all persons under the
provisions Of the article thirteen, or Of acts
to enforce the same, shall be tried by the
court, or by q jury, if any party to the suit
pays for jury trial. 1t then provides that
the court shall determine the cause in case
of mistrial as aforesaid.
Several objections are urged to the valid
ity Of this statute, which must now be
passed upon:
l. tits insisted that its provisions should
have no application to this case because it
was not promulgated until the seventeenth
of March, the day after the trial COM
menced; that quo adj this suit it is retroac-
tive and violates article Ito of the constitu-
ton. But the law was approved February
q, and was to take effect from its passage.
1t was law on that date, though not pro-
mulgated. An. 68; J3 An. SOP; IA An. 486.
1t was, therefore, not retroactive as re-
CARDS this case, for when the trial occurred
the statute was in full force. 1t relates
Alone to the trial. --t
2. 1t is urged that at the time the present
constitution was framed the right of trial
by jury in such case6 was not denied, and
that such right is, therefore, expressly re-
served by the terms Of article fourteen,
which declares that 1.-THE rights enumerated
in this title shall not be construed to limit
or abridge other rights of the people not
herein expressed"
If it were fact that constitutional
right Of trial BY jury in civil cases existed
at the time of the adoption of the cOnstitu-
ton of 1868, it would be necessary to exam
inc the scope of this article fourteen of the
bill of rights. But such is not the case.
1t has been settled by numerous decisions
that the right of14ry trial in civil cases,
guaranteed by thSsseventh amendment to
the constitution of the United States, only
has reference to proceedings in the federal
courts, and has no application to the State
tribunals; 5 n. 436. Indeed, it is not now
urged that the law violates the constitution
of the United States in that respect.
The several constitutions of Louisiana
have guaranteed the right of jury trial in
criminal prosecutions, but have left to the
Legislature the power of determining in
what civil cases such trials shall be had-l
An. 4l8; 3 An, 1877; r., 1913. The whole
judicial framework is based upon such de-
NAL, for the Supreme Court is empowered
to review questions of fact which have been
decided by juries, contrary to the common
pressly denies the right of jury trial in all
cases which may come before the parish
cOurt-article eighty-seven. Therefore, as
the right of Jury trial in such q case as this,
prior to the adoption of the constitution,
depended upon legislative will, it does not
seem that article fourteen is violated.
| 3. Counsel insist that the first section of
this statute guarantees the right of jury
trial; that there has been no trial, but a mis-
trial, and, therefore, the second section, di-
recting the court to decide the case when
the jury does not agree, is DESTROYED.
The several provisions of statutes are con-
strued together.
4. And finally it is said that this act is
mischlevous in its tendency, and subver
sive of the republican form Of government
If the law is not unconstitutional the
courts have nothing to do with its tendency;
it may be good or . bad law; the judges
who administer it are not responsible.
The act does not violate any provision OF
the constitution of the United States or OF
our own State. 1t is true that it is an in
fringement Of the right of person who has
been sued to have his case determined by
his peers, but it does not seem at all clear
that any wrong has been committed. The
ultimate power in this State of deciding all
questions Of fact and law in civil cases is
not with the jury, but with the judges
Litigation must not continue forever; the
law was evidently formed for the purpose
of ending these suits which could not other
wise be concluded: Juries could not be