The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-04-29
OUR SUPREME JEFFREYS.

, tangled maze OF tne1r contradictions, II
predicating upon their past decisions cor
: lecture of their future decisons-not even
: method Of charitably harmonizing into som
tone Of plausibility the discOrdancy of thei
9 current rulings. BY them, the maxim star
decisis is buried, ard, with mock solemnty
wrapped in the same shroud to which the
: have consigned all that was left in Louisi
ana of reverence for the laws supreme in
terpreters.
If that court has been reckless Of all pre-
cedcnt and careless of all consistency il
every thing that has come up for its adjudi
cation, it has made special effort to surpas
its own want of self-respect, its own cynica
disregard Of all reason and all courtly deco
rum in its treatment Of political and parti
san questions. Time and again have they
knowingly trampled upon law and CLOSED
their eyes to evidence, for, alas we cannot
impute their errors to an ignorance which
might progressively be enlightened nor to a
stupidity which might yet be reused.
An additional instance of their unfailing
disregard of all precedent and of all even
handed justice, is afforded by the last num-
Der of their published decisions. In the
case just reported, Of Magloire VS. Barbin,
Judge Morgan, as the organ of a unanimous
court, dismissed the appeal taken by the de-
PENDANT, on the ground which is here textu-
ally quoted. The appeal is dismissed
Because the transcript filed by appellant
is not complete, it not containing all the evil
dence offered on the trial of the cause be-
low. In his answer the defendant AYERS
that he was duly elected Sheriff of the
parish Of Avoyelles, and commission issued
to him as such, without reciting by whom
the commission issued. On the trial the
defendant offered the commission in evil
dence. We cannot find it in the record
In Harris VS. Hays, : An, 433, it was held.
that " 1t is the duty Of the appellant to see
that the record contains all the evidence on
which the case was tried. If he neglect to
do so, the Court is without means of review
ing the case, and the appeal will be dis
missed" In Hall VS.. Beggs, II An, 40. it
was held that "where documents offered in
evidence below are not to be found in the
record, the appeal will be dismissed" The
same rule has been observed in IL An, y; Is
An, 40; Is An, 232. In accordance with
these authorities the appeal is dismissed
Now, that ruling is either correct or it is
incorrect. If it be incorrect, the Immediate
and practical effect of the error is to strip
a Democrat of his just rights, and to
set up in his stead an intruding Rad
cal, without even permitting the former
to exhibit his title. If, on the other
hand, the ruling be correct, it must be
founded on law or precedent; at least, it
should conform to precedents established in |
similar cases by the very court which made
it. Let us assume that The ruling was cor
rect, and thus acquit the Court of any sus-
picion of wrongfully constituting the law, so
rs to accomplish a partisan purpose, I'M
worthy of its exalted magistracy. Let it be
assumed that the honorable Judges in dis
missing Barbins appeal, were in the right
" reason of the diminution of the record.
There need be no difficulty in making the
for every lawyer knows that the
appellate court can act upon case
My when it is placed in posses
ion of all the evidence adduced be-
ore the inferior court. That principle,
While it is an elementary one, is
ustained by a powerful array of iurispru-
encc, which was set forth at large in an
Bile. elaborate and exhaustive brief, sub |
lifted to the Supreme Court some twelve !
lonths ago, by Mcssrs. Louis Bush and CLAW !
noblock, of Lafourche. That brief is be- L
IRE us at. this moment. 1t was in the cases /
Dnsolidated and reported in the 25th An. D. t
j5, under the title Fred Collier VS.. j. w. U
HON we have named appearing on behalf of Y
lie appellees, all of whom had the misfor- s
me of being elected by Democratic votes a
ow, Messrs. Bush and knobock made in t
lose cases the same point as the one raised
the lease of Magloire VS.. Barbin. They t.
lggested a still greater diminution of the y
cord. They made the same motion to di ft
inish They quoted the same authorities IT
voked by Morgan in the case now under Il
view, but the Court did not make the same Il
der. c,
There is no distinguishing the two cases &C
cepting by the vastly greater diminu- w
IN OF the record of the case which the b;
urt refused to dismiss and that of the st
Sc which they ordered to be dismissed.
the latter case there was but one docu- al
mt missing; in the former case the emu 1t
,ration of the missing evidence occupied al
o full pages of the appellees' printed al
lef, copy Of which is on the files of the ac
preme Court. A written motion to dis fl.
IS had previously been filed, based, as we
We said, on ampler grounds than those in
ggested in Magloire's case. The motion L,
,ites the omission from the record of 70
[. Twenty-one triplicate statements by by
. Supervisor of Registration for the ~
enty-one voting precincts of Lafourche, I'd
the results of the election held in said OF
IRISH on the 4th of November, 1872, being
: documents on which the experts APP
lnted in the case made cut their compila-
n.
,. The report of the returning officers for At,