The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-04-08
ATTENPTTO ROB THE PARISH
OF ST. CHARLES.
Tie Supreme Court Kills the Lit
tie Game.

| o. J. Flagg, Judge Of the Fourth Judicial
District, Morgan Morgans, Arthur Robbins,
Letitia Darlington, sister of Flagg, the Judge,
have all been engaged in little scheme
whereby the parish Of st. Charles was to be
despoiled Of q snug little sum and the tax
payers robbed.
The Supreme Court has just exposed the
the whole job in several cases brought up on
appeal, and Justice WHY, in his opinion,
about the scheme. He says:
0. J. Flagg, who is the Judge OF the Fourth
Judicial District Court brought this suit
against the parish of st. Charles on numerous
warrants or evidences of debt issued by the
President Of the Police Jury, or by the Secre-
tary of that body, amounting in the aggre-
gate to S7OO4 80, claiming that the same was
transferred to him for a valuable considera-
ton, and Offering in evidence a list of said
claims together with said warrants or evil
dences of Indebtedness, he obtained judgment
by default against the parish Of 81. Charles
for the full amount the Parish Judge pre-
siding instead OF plaintiff (Flagg), the Dis
trict Judge, who appeared to prosecute his
own suit. No other proof was adduced III
support of the demand
The defendant, the parish Of ST. Charles,
made no defense and took no appeal. s. \.
Burbank, w. 3. Whitehead, LeSasser y
Binder, Robert Patterson, o. B. Graham 81
Curry, A. Rochereau, the Citizens Bank and
thirteen other taxpayers in said parish, al
leging, under oath, that their pecuniary in
terest in the matter in dispute largely exceeds
five hundred dollars, and are aggrieved, have
taken an appeal from said judgment
The plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal
on seyera! grounds, the most important being
that in their petition and affidavit they show
no cause for the appeal. We think ether
wise. Appellants, as taxpayers, VII! nave to
| contribute to pay the judgment, OF which
they complaint special tax being ordered in
the decree, and their interest, they swear,
exceeds five hundred dollars.
| Ii the taxpayers Of the parish who will
have to pay the judgment, if it is put in fore,
have no interest to have it reversed on appeal
because erroneous, it is difficult to imagine
who has. As legal entity, the parish cannot
suffer by an unjust judgment: it is the people,
An extraordinary feature Ct the case is pre-
| scented in the motion to dismiss the appeal
filed by N. S. Martin, District Attorney pro
tenn, in behalf Of the parish, the defendant,
who is condemned to pay S7Oof SO.
Why he should be anxious to join the
plaintiff, the district judge, and defeat the
appeal to the prejudice OF his client, the
parish which was condemned to pay large
sum, we are at loss to imagine.
| The conduct Of this public officer is repre-
| hensible bare inspection OF the record
was sutfic Gent to indicate the course for him
to pursue in view OF his duty as an officer
charged with protecting the legal rights OF
his client, the parish Of St. Charles.
| He took no appeal, however, and when ap-
pellants, the taxpayers Of said parish, sought
to exercise that right, not content with his
own inaction, he files q motion joining with
the plaintiff (the district judge in an effort
to defeat the appeal.
His reason for so doing that the police
| jury, at special meeting, confessed and
| recognized similar claims in the suit of Nor
gan Morgans against the parish, and ordered
| the defense withdrawals no excuse for the
course he has pursued. The motion is de-
| MED.
There are several reasons why the judg-
ment should be reversed.
l, In this default confirmed against the de-
PENDANT there is no proof that the warrants or
certificates offered in evidence were issued by
the parish or were authorized to be issued by
the police jury, there being no proof except
those documents adduced at the trial.
2. 1t the warrants or certificates were
authorized to be issued they are not sufficient
to authorize the judgment for the reasons
stated in Sterling VS. the Parish Of West
Feliciana, suit brought on warrants or scrip
Of the same kind aud presenting the same
questions. Police jcries, in the administra-
| ton Of the limited powers contided to them,
must provide means by taxation for the pur-
pose and in the manner provided by law;
they cannot bind the parish by putting III
circulation their notes or warrants at pleasure.
Section 27S6 CT the Revised Statutes pro-
vides that ''the police juries Of the several
parishes shall not hereafter have
power to contract any debt or pecuniary la
bility, without fully providing in the ordi-
nance creating the debt, the means Of paying
! the principal and interest Of this debt SO con-
tracted.
Section 27S7 provides that the ordinance
providing means to pay the debt 50 contracted,
shall remain in force, that is, it shall not be
repealed until the debt and interest are fully
paid.
Section 27SS provides that where the Police
Jury has provided for the payment Of debt
by levying tax, but refuse TO cause It to be
collected, reli If may be had in the courts.
| In the record plaintiff presents no case en-
fitting him to relief. The Judgment must be
| reversed.
| In the three other cases like judgments
were rendered and the officials of the parish
severely handled for this attempt to rob the
parish. These judgments save the taxpayers
Of St. Charles parish over thirty thousand
| dollars, and expose gang OF Pitts cormo-
rants and their mode of doing business.