The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-05-24

| :. No judicial powers except Is committing magi
once. othsr th.n oss ~ e tsa al. on -
such - may be necessary in towns and cites and th
judicial powers Of such ocers shsll not extend fu
ther than the cognzance Of cases arising under th
Upon perusal Of this article for the ct time, th
impression IL created that the prohibition takes wild
range and restricts within very narrow limits the ~
thorty OF the Leg slature to confer judicial power
upon any ocers either existing crested than ,hoe
named In title " Of the Constitution; but, on carefr
considesatiou. the meaning md object OF TIE Eticl
more less than that the Lisature shall not hav
the power TO confer Jurisdiction to try and determin
cases wherein persons are charged wit
crime upon any officers except those meu
toned in title " Of the Constitution; but
expressly permits the comforting OF Jurisdiction to
and determine violations of police regulations. FL
ltperience has taught me that the mistake general
.Dade in constituting Art. "a OF the Constitution
similar to that made In regard to Art 6. Those VII
fall into the confound offences an crimes viii
violations Of police regulations; for II the argumen
be good that police magst ates cannot summary dis
pose Of arising under police regulations, such
defined in art lie No o. then the aiming Of juris
dction by them, under any police regulation or cit
dnance is in contravention Of IT. "a of the Consti
tuition.
think the distinction 1 make will be considered
logical by all who choose to reflect upon the subject
Every violation Of law s not neces arily . crime.
MY attention having been called to q decision rem
dered by the learned Judge OF the sixth District Court
in case similar to the one at bar, have taken speca
pains to examine that decision and freely admit tina
commenced its perusal with predsposition to con
with the views of the learned judge. because en-
terrain great respect for his opinion questions
but regret to say that the very decisions he has
quoted, lead me to q conclusion entirely different
from he one he has arrived In the quotation from
Mr. Dillon municipal corporations, dist notion ID
made which seems to have escaped the learned Judge
the language is follows: Under the general term
Of ordI ances have sometimes been included all the
regulations by which . corporation 10 governed, in
Guiding special charter statute regulations well
by-laWs." Here it Ill be perceived distinction If
made. and very properly between statute regulations
and by laws. Again, quoting from the same author
ity: According to 1 ord Coke. the word by or bye
signifies hsb tatioD, and thence bylaw in England
or by law ordinance In this country be defined
place or districts made by themselves or the
authorized body. in distinction from the gen.
eral law Of the cou try. the statute Law
of the State. Thus 1t is evident that statute regua
ton and bylaw are not one and the same thing. A
Legislature does not nsct bylaws but 1t estab
lsh police regulations. Article "a of the Constitution
does not designate who shall enact the police rgula
tons referred in the aricle merely restricts he
judicial power to be conferred officers created by
tue Legislature; that u.s. the power to sdjudcste finally
to dispose OF summarily-to cases arising pnder the
police regulations of cities and wns but it does not
prohibit the establishing Of these police regulations
by the .islature Indeed, in the case of Diamond
vs. Cain III s9 It has been expressly decided that
the VIII lie subject OF the city corporation and police s
by the Constitution, left in the power and discretion
OF the Legislature.
An act Of the Legislature should not be declared
reasonab doubt 81 A. 694. and authorities there
cited entertain no doubt that act No is consttu
tOnal; but, had doubt, under the decision just
quoted would solve the doubt in favor the act
The second ground urged on behalf Of the relator
is that act No. is an at capt by the Legislature to
enfor, by imlnal process doubtful private rights.
cannot PEI ceive the force of this assertion The
supreme Court of the State has In two decisions (23
A. TAB; "a A., 85 sustained the monopoly of
the TT fic in lottery tickets in favor OF one
company. In exchange for the monopoly and
privileges granted, the Safe recei forty tn usand
dollars yearly the state ia bound to protect Whatever
rghts or privileges IT confers. see that they be
not interfered with abridged and for that purpose
it may enact either general or local avs. he onl,
party In nv opinio !. having any right to complain
tnat the act affects the city OF New Orleans only
lottery company for whose protection it is
enacted The provisions Of Act No. O. are restrictive
uponethe company Tor even its own lottery tickets
cannot be Id by others than itse T, except
one deprived OF the ri ht Of selling lottery ticket-
IL merely required that those desiring to sell shall
do under such conditions to maintain the rights
and privileges Of the company holding the monopoly;
which would seem o be equitable. Ii the grant 10
the compa be valid have shown 1t has been dc.
cded to be by the highest authority IL
to public. order and gool faith to infringe It, 4
measure to protect it IS meisur to MAINTAIN he
public order, and prevent mIpor Violations OF law
4 d is therefore bona fde pc ice regulation.
Entertaining the views / have announced, cannot
grant the relief prayed Dnder the writ and must
rider the relator to be taken into Gust dy by the
She if, aud he'd under the commitm mt issued by
he Judge OF the rst Mum cipal Police Court.
sixth District Court.
The following case is one presenting Somewhat novel
nd uncommon features, and in fact. ma be looked
pon as extraordinary case. Both the plaintiff and
defendant minors, and the circumstances Of the
uit of entirely LEGAL nature, the object sued
Or being othng less than valuable god wa, Oh and
hahn offered q pri At VI the late festivals 1T
be Fair Grounds. and aimed to have bsen won v |
h. y aintif. However. we will let the petitioner
xplsin: |
me petition represents that the plaintiff Joseph
aphael Sc be, minor arrived at the full age of f
zen year,. ly emancipatei. ETC., and represented
nd assisted by Eugene seube bis brother, rs curatvr
d Item. before the Co-rt, did purchase from
n entertainment given at the Fair Grounds on tn
ith of May, 1874. Annexed to said ticket
er of lottery, coupon. emitting the older to
hance in legally authorized lottery OF which one OF
ie prizes certsin gold watch and chain.
Petitioner held ticket, with coupon, b. airing No.
172; blu being PERSONALLY unable to attend the
stival in question: handed the SAID ticker to his bro
Ter Eugene Seube with the distinct understanding
lat petitioner. Joseph Raphael seube, should still
,tain the absolute undivided right to the prize
en- by said number, any prize should be drawn 10
lie sam Now, III turn, Eugene .eube, the brother
eng also detained from being pr ent at the festi
u gave the said ticket to one Henry Germann, Jr.
it'll the same agreement reservi g the privilege and
gbts of the coupon for the pet toner and orig a
lrchsser and holder, Joseph Raphael $ ube Al the
.awng, the said No 1912 won a prize-a certa gold
atch and chain vau at $3.50.
The said Germanu Jr., then had the atch deliver
to him through the me ium OF q third ~, who
zee pied tor the watch won by the number on the
pom attached to ii ket presented by the said thi
Lrty. had received it from Germann, Jr., who
had it given him by Eu enc Seuba. wio held it
ON the hands OF 10 epn Raphael Seube the orig nal
ID lawful owner of the ticket viii b has or ated ali
il disturbance" and this lie the house that u X
,ilt."
Germann. Jr.. being min,r, cannot appear In
urt; go petitioner prays that GerMann'e father be
pointed curator ad hoe to represent Gera ,Jr, the
titoner, Joseph Raphael Sewbe having previously
aged. he also being . inOr. that his brother, Eu
ne ewbe, be appointed curator ad Item to ass st him
institutng and prosecuting this suit.