The People's vindicator. [volume] (Natchitoches, La.) 1874-1883, 1876-05-27
Moncure VS.. Dubuclet.

Moncure VS.. Dubuclet.
Dissenting opinion Of Justices Wy'y
and Morgan.
Terrible Custigation Of the Supresnr
Court by Two If its Members.
SOMETHING FOR EVERY LOUI>IANIAN 70
READ.
No. 1923. State ex rel. J. c. Mon
cure, appellant, vs.. Antoine DubncIet.
Appeal from the Superior District
Court for the parish Of Orleans.
JUSTICE wYLY DISSENTING.
Moncurc alleges that he was elect
ed State Treasurer, but that the Re-
turning Board, by refusing to canvass
and count the votes at certain polls
and in certain parishes, and by reject
in. Others after investigation, 50
changed the result as to make it ap-
near that Dubuclet received ajor.
ity of the votes, and so declared, and
Dubucle was thercupOn commissioned.
| lie charges that the canvass was not
fairly made, and the conduct of the
Returning Board was arbitrary and
fraudulent.
The petition was dismissed on the
execution that it disclosed no cause
of action, and the court was without
jurisdiction to inquire into the ac''on
of the Returning Board that its acts
are limited to its own discretion, ami
it's findings are not subject to review
by any court: .
The doctrine that the Board Of
State Canvassers or Returning Board
! is vested with the power contcnded
for by defendant, and that its action
cannot he reviewed by the courts,
however arbitrary and fraudulent it
NAV be, is 4 doctrine that is not sup
20, ted 10y act 90 Of the acts Of 1872,
the law organizing said Returning
Board, nor is it authorized by any law
of this State. On the contrary, the
law crea ting the Returning Board
and providing for the canvass of the
votes after an election, declares that
"the returns of the election thus made
and promulgated shall be frima ,facic
evidence in all courts Of justice and
before all civil officers; anti! set aside
attera contest, according to taw, Of the
right Of any person named therein to
hold and exercise the office to which
he shall by such return he declared
elected"
What does this language mean ! II
means what il says That the finding
Of the Returning Board are not con-
: elusive, but they are only prina tacit
evidence in all courts Of justice "unti
set aside after contest according Il
law."
. The intention of the law.giver il
not obscure. 1t clearly contemplatet
{ q review of the action of The Return
ing Board by the courts, whenever :
4 complaint is made by party inter
, ested that the canvass made by sncl
D board is unfair, arbitrary or fraulu
:, lent, and that it is injurious to tin
:, complainant.
There is no doubt the statute il
4 question was passed in reference t.
: article ten Of the constitution and til.
i laws Of the State, giving remedy
Q where there is a wrong. Article tel
of the constitution declares that "al
). courts shall be open, and every per
II SOD, for injury done him in his land
): goods, person or reputation, shal
J. lave adequate remedy by due pro
!. cess of law, and justice administers,
y without denial or unreasonable delay.
9 If Moncure was elected State Treas
'e nrer by a majority Of 1876 votes owe
T. !, his opponent, Antoine Dubuciet, an'
II was frautlulently counted out by tin
,. Returning Board, us he alleges in til
q petition land this aver,uent must b.
taken rs true for the purpose Of try
a ing this exception, there is no cans
is Of actioD), he has been nnjnstly dc
n prived of his Office, his rights hav'
" been invaded, and, by article 10 Q
Is the constitution, the courts are opel
IS to give him ian adequate remedy b.
y due process Of law, and Justice sbal
ID be administered" to him "witliOut de
n NAL and unreasonable delay.'' Sc
n also q An, l38.
to In nv opinion the petition disclose
10 a cause of action, and the canvass {
l. the Returning Board in not beyon
:, the reach of judicial inquiry. 1t
4 the election by the people, and M
70 the certificate of the Returning Boart
Re that gives a right to an office.
e; think the case should he remand
d. ed to be tried on the merits.
4. The forms for every legal deman,
10 and they have not catalosued in Il
j. Code Of Practice all the actions tn:
ID may be brought in our courts ; it
Or perhaps relt that they hare not done s.
=" lest by the omission Of a form, suLste,
r tial relief in some cases might be denit
Is to a person rhose rights hare been i,
m raded. In our opinion plaintiff HI
b. shown an injury, aud if there be no e,
10 press lac giuing a remedy it can appe'
ne to the equity po,cers Of the Court f
D. redress.
t's Applying the principles of the ca
& cited to the one at bar, would ga,
e, 10 the language Of that decision
n "plaintif (Moncure) has shown an il
is jury, and if there he no express Ia
ar giving remedy he can appeal to Il
"a equity powers Of the Courts for r
dress. If however, the cause of a
ton were doubtful l would feel i,