New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-07-04

ry into effect any such provisions,
or to interfere with, or arrest under
this statute any person for any assumed
violation on their part, no matter what
might be its character. Passing out OF
view the character of these men, they may
be as good men as are in the community,
or as bad men, but passing that question
entirely, and considering the relation they
bear to society and the organization OF the
government, they have no right or author
ity under this statute to touch or disturb
any person in any way in the discharge OF
any of their duties or in the enforcement OF
anv of their rights. To do 80 makes them
amenable to the penal laws of the State, as
we'll as any other person who might do the
same thing. If the judge of this court
should attempt to disturb the agents OF
railroad companies or any other persons IN
the exercise of their functions, he would
be amenable to the criminal laws
for so doing and SO are those parties, Pres
ident Bernau and all others. Every person
has right, by pursuing the forms OF law,
to cause to be arrested whoever is viciously
or wickedly abusing or injuring any animal,
and the person who 50 abuses an animal ls
liable to the owner thereof for the damages
he inflicts on the animal This IS the gem
eral law Of the State. 1t is universal. These
gentlemen, by virtue of this corporation or
association as it is styled, have no rights,
and can exercise none. that anybody else
can not exercise. They have no right to
cause anybody to bs arrested under tne
general laws of the State more than any
one else has, and are without authority to
make any rules or regulations, or to
fix anything not fixed by the statute itself
as a crime and penalty. Legislation can
not be delegated. The Legislature Is With
out the power to authorize any third person
or organization OF any sort to leglsiale or
make anything crime and atdx penalty
to any act which the Legislature itself has
failed or refused to DO, so that II the rules
and regulations of this company or organ
ization should define the beating of mule
over the head as cruelty, that defining or
fixing would be utterly void unless the
general law had 80 declared. The act would
be harmless SO far as the company is con-
cerned. 1t is no 0ffense at all; they are
without the capacity, right, or authority, to
constitute or create such an offense
View the enormous character or the
provisions of this whele statute. 1t
strikes to be significant only of the pur-
pose to abuse the legitimate legislative
authority, and it therefore becomes the
duty of the court, whenever case Is pre-
senIed where it has authority to act to SO
decla are. My opinion is the court has au-
thority in this case, because this proceed
ing is directed against the association as
such, which assumes to make and enact
rules which it styles laws, and which alone
constitute ofenses and defines penalties.
At least they undertake to determine Of
lenses, or what constitutes a general Of
fense, and it is left to the discretion OF this
association whether they should declare
more than ten persons or two N car to be
an overlooking or an undertaking OF the car.
One day they might make one rule on the
subject, and next day another one. But as
before held, ali their acts on that question
and on all others in which they undertake
to determine that question, are entitled TO
no consideration, because they have no right
| to make them, SO far as l am able to see.
| The whole statute is stricken with nuIlity,
| because strike out these provisions and
there is no statute left. There is lot of
stuff here which goes on to define what the
association shall do, who shall be secretary,
| who shall exercise the functions of officers,
which amount to nothing unless the pro-
visions of the act are conveyed. Sections
| four and five materially constitute the sub
| stantive provisions of the act, the others are
| OF no consequence. 1t is immaterial whether
| they are stricken out or reDlain. There is
| no act unless these two provisions are held
valid. am unable to see there is any such
| thing as a statute, Notwithstanding Its title.
| The title of the act is not consistent with
| its provisions. The act sets forth different
purposes and objects than those Indicated
| BY the title. If it was considered to be
| criminal statute it is utterly void, because
| the title does not indicate that there is any-
Louisiana State Association for the Pre-
vention and Suppression of Cruelty to Ami
| mails" does not indicate clearly what it is.
| That title may mean q humanitarian asso-
citation. The public, from a examination
| of the title, would be unable to say what
designation it should get. This does not
| possess such a title as statute containing
| several of its provisions would require, but
| it is certainly absolutely void; that is, that
part of it without which there would be
no statute. 1t is absolutely void because it
confers powers which the Legislature can
not delegate.
| think an Injunction lies in case OF
| this character. l will, therefore, make II
| peremptory.
City Of New Orleans vs.. Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.-Peti
| ton sets forth that defendant, under act OF
March 4, 1874, claims the right to arrest and
impIison animals in pounds, and to carry
OUT the provisions of city ordinance No
1896; that it has illegally imprisoned ami
mails in pounds, and unlawtully exacted
| penalties in violation of this ordinance
that it illegally intertered with petitioner,
| rights; that the act is unconstitutional
first, because it provides that defendants
may decide what constitutes crime; sec
ond, its object is not expressed in its title
and third, that it only creates body cor
| $1,000 damages. Injunction issued restrain
| ing the society FROM exercising any of thu
functions attempted to be created by thi
| act.
| Frances G.. Donovan ct ux. vs.. city, Of
| New Orleans.-PetitiOner claims forty-seveI
feet eleven inches three lines of batturt
property, corner of Front and Roffigna.
| streets; that it has formed until there i
more than is required for public use; tina
it is valued at $4,000, and prays to b.
settled in the right of possession.
Superior Criminal Court.
| State vs. Hortense Hale.-Murder. Th
| charged, mistrial was entered.
| State We. A. w. Kinchin.-Murder. Bal
| fixed at 500, 900.
State VS.. Joseph Hugel.-Murder. New
| trial refused.
| State vs.. Thomas Anderson.-Embezzle
ment. Nolle prosequi entered.
vERDIcTs.
| E. Stanberry and NJ. Ross. two boys twelv
| and thirteen years old, were found guilt.
of burglary and grand larceny, but recon
mended to the mercy of the court on &C
| count of their tender age.
D. G.. Copeland was convicted of gram
larceny.
| John Davis and Louisa Adams we're &C
| quilted of robbery.
| ON TRIAL.
Elijah Brown and John Jacobs wer
acquitted of the charge OF breaking and en-
terlng store.
| Fourth District Court.
| VIII. Voelker VS.. F. Huberwald,-Sui
| for a years wages, reduced to $500, tn
/ Il. khof ho xnoto