New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-24
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, MAY %, 1874.
nited States Circnit Court.

United States vs.. w. j. Cruik5n ct al
Conspiracy and murder. On trial.
superior Criminal Court.
Judge Atocha to-day pronounced the
following important decisions:
State of Louisiana on the relation of c.
Rodriguez for ha beas cOrpus-Ihe relator IN
his petition sets forth that he is illegally
deprived of his liberty, and held in cOntine-
rent by the keeper of the Parish Prison by
virtue of commitment wrongfully and
illegally issued by the Hon. A. II. Near
thur, Judge Of the First Municipal Police
Court for violation of the provisions of
act No. of the General Assembly OF the
State of Louisiana, passed al the session OF
the year 1874, under which "a fine OF $25 has
been imposed, or in default of payment,
that the relatOr be imprisoned in the Parish
Prison tor the term OF five days; and he asks
to be released from custody on the follow
ing grounds:
Eirst-That the act is unconstitutional.
Because /. The title does not express the
object of the law; 2. The right OF trial by
Jury is denied; 3. Judicial powers are con
terred in cOntravention of article ninety
four, of the constitution.
Second-That the act No. is an attempt
BY the Legislature to enforce by criminal
process doubtful private rights.
1t is proper to consider the grounds OF
this application as they are presented. The
title of this act is as follows: IAN act rela-
tive to the unlicensed sale OF lottery tickets
in the city of New Orleans, and comforting
on police courts the power to suppress the
same" The title to an act is unquestionably
Intended and required to give reasonable
notice of the object of the law; ii that be
accomplished the constitutional provision
is complied with. To demand or expect
more would necessitate that the title should
contain specific definition Of every provi-
sion of the act, which would be simply alb
surd. 1.-The title of law is not to be
strictly construed; if it state the object
according to the understanding Of reason
able men, it satisfies the constitution
Municipality No. 3 vs. Michoud. 6 A., 6O3;
City National Bank VS.. Mahan, II A, 1872;
% A., 145; II A., 69l; 81 A, 49,
That the title of the act under review
reasonably expresses the object is so pal
pably evident that 1t seems to me not to re-
quire discussion. 1t can not be even pre-
tended that there is ambiguity in the Ian
guage used. Any person OF ordinary sense
upon reading the title can not fail to under
stand that the act intends to provide
against selling of lottery tickets without
license, and for enforcing the prohibition
through the action OF police courts, which
necessarily implies the imposing of some
penalty. That is all the act provides for.
conclude that the objection to the title is
without reason.
The next objection is, that the act denies
the right of trial by jury, guaranteed by
the constitution. The article of the consti
tuition here invoked, is the same as found
in the constitution of the United States,
and in the previous constitutions of this
State. almost in the same words. The
meaning and intent of this article have
been the subject of frequent Interpretation
in this State. State VS.. Gutierrez. IL A.,
100; State vs.. Noble, 20 A.. 325. In Yer
mont the constitutional provision is similar
to that of this State, with light variation
in language but all to the same purpOrt;
and in that State it has been held, as in the
decisions in this State referred to, that the
provision is not intended to apply to small
otfenses against the police regulations of
the State. The State vs.. Collin. - Vermont.
3lS; in re Dougherty, y Vermont. 325. So
that is a we'll considered and settled princi-
pie, that there may be cases in which Jury
trial may not be awarded, without violating
the article of the constitution on the sub
iect A great deal of the outcry about the
of the privilege of jury trial, arises
from the fact that for the purpose of evad
ing penalties the most petty violations of
city ordinances and police regulations are
magniIied into otfenses. The constitution
has no reference whatever to anything eX-
cept that which is properly an otfense, a
crime. Act No. 9 does not create any of
tense. any crime; it simply prohibits the
carrying on OF ii certain traff'c within the
limts VI the city of New Orleans, without
with named conditions, intended
simply TO protect the rights guaranteed by
the State 10 certain parties.
Until urged in argument upon the return
to tae writ, I had supposed that the right of
rs1a N nnlign rppula.
tons was no longer an open question under
the decisions by the Supreme Courts OF the
United States and of this State, and l hnd
by reference to the authorities. that my
supposition was correct. State VS..
Fosdick. u A. 256: Diamond VS.. Cain.
Il A. 800: Shaughterhouse cases, 10
Wallace 62 Railroad Company VS..
Fpller. II Wallace 56S. In the latter case,
the Supreme Court of the United States.
speaking of police regulation, repeat and
adopt the language in the case of Gibbons
vs.. Odgen, Wheaton |, as follows: at is
a police regulation, and as such forms "a
portion OF the immense mass of legislation
which embraces everything within the
territory OF State, not surrendered to the
general government, all which can be most
exercised by the States
There can be no question of
the right of State to establish police re-
gulations for any part or for the whole of |
the territory OF the State.
As to whether the provisions of act No. 9 |
constitute police regulation, l will now
consider in connection with the objection |
that judicial powers are conferred in con-
to article ninety-four of the con- |
stitution of this State.
The first paragraph, which is lthe only |
portion of the article under discussion at |
this time, reads as follows:
mo judicial powers, except as commit
ing magistrates in criminal cases, shall be
conferred on any officers other than those