The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1877-12-08
OUR DISTRICT JUDGE DECLARED
INELIGIBLE.

| On Monday last decision was rem
fdered by the Supreme Court in thu
case entitled State of Louisiana &c rel
Frederick Duffel, District Attorney
pro tenn, Us. Morris Marks, on appea'
from this parish, and involving the
eligibility of defendant to the Office Of
Judge of this Judicial District. Chief
Justice E. I. Manning wrote the de-
olson concurred in by a majority OF
the court, declaring Judge Marks dis
qualified the following synopsis OF
which we take from the New Orleans
Times of Tuesday:
The object of this suit is to test the right
of the defendant to the office of District
Judge of the Fourth Judicial District. 1t is
alleged that he was elected to that Office in
November, 1876, but that he can not hold it
because of ineligibility, not having all of
the qualifications prescribed by the constitu-
ton. The special qualification wanting is,
that he shall have praetieed lazy in this
State for two years next proceeding his cleo
ton. Art. "a. t+H
The respondent, after making general
denial, bases his claim to the rightful oceu-
pancy of the judgeship upon degree of
Bachelor of Law, duly conferred by the ad-
illustrators of the University of Louisiana
on the 24th of April, 1872" and in virtue of
his election and commission and qualifica-
ton as District Attorney of the same district
in 1872, the duties of which latter Office he
performed from that time until his election
as judge. He alleges that he has practiced
law in this State for two years next proceed
ing his election, the right to practice being
based upon the degree above mentioned and
the actual practice, upon his performance of
the functions of prosecuting officer, and up
on certificates of Clerks of Courts and of
litigants that he had practised. ***
The respondent was not a graduate OF the
Law Department of the University The
resolution of the administrators, which is
the sole basis of the respondents right to
practice law, shows that he was rejected
when he applied to be graduated. Having
been rejected, and being without diploma,
without degree, without license from this
court, the respondent nevertheless insists
that he has practised law, as the constitution
requires he shall do for given time, and is
therefore eligible to the office of District
Judge. We can not hold that the unauthor-
lied practice of profession entities one
to its highest rewards and honors, when its
lawful practice is condition or PREF equisite
to them.
We think the respondent was and is in
eligible to the Office of District Judge and
therefore, it is ordered and decreed that the
Judgment of the lower court is avoided and
reversed, and that the respondent, Morris
Marks, is not eligible to the office of Judge of
the Fourth Judicial District of this State,
which Office is now declared vacant, and that
there be Judgment in favor of the relator
against the respondent for costs of both
courts.
Justices Spencer and DeBlanc dis
sented from this decision, but no
statement of their views has appeared
in print. We made an effort to pro-
cure the full text of. both opinions for
publication in this issue.o of the CHIEF,
but it has proven unsuccessful.
Judge Marks, We. understand, is
now engaged in attempting to obtain
a rehearing of the case, and if this is
refused he will seek an appeal to the |
Supreme Court of the United States.
Members of our local bar are of the |
opinion that such an anneal will MT |
lie, inasmuch as there is no |
question of federal law involved, and
here is nothing in the pleadings to
'howf or allege that the adverse de- |
:ision of the State court will deprive
he defendant of any vested constitu-
ional right. eI