Le MeschaceÌbeÌ. [volume] ([Lucy] La.) 1853-1942, 1877-05-12
State of Louisiana er rel. Fred
Dutel, d ais ps. Morris Marks.A =
2 Decision ofJudqe II. o. Mahcr.

State of Louisiana, Fourth Judicial Dis
trict Court In and for the parish Of Ascen-
sion.-State of Louisiana, er rel. Fred Dunel.
District Attorney pro fempore ct al, versus
Morris Marks.-This case came up regularly
for trial on the exceptions and merits, as per
assignments. on the 23rd December. 1876:
when after hearing pleadings. evidence and
argument Of counsel. the Court took the
case under advisement and now renders the
following decision:
The Court, considering that the excep-
tions filed herein by the defendant are not
we'll founded so far as the action Of the
State under the intrusion art is concerned.
but that the relator, q. j. Flagg, shows no
interest in this cause the evidence showing
that he il fnnet,ls o6feio. that he was defeat
ed at the last election by the defendant who
was commissioned. qualified and indncted
into Office. II is therefore ordered, adludg-
ed and decreed that the exceptions OF the
defendant be dismissed 80 far as the action
the relator. o. J. Flagg.
On the merits of the case Of the State.
under the intrusion act, the Court considers
that the defendant has fully proved his eligi-
bility under articles SO and 81 Of the Cor
stitnti0n. II Ia to be noted that the defend.
ant agreed. although defendant 10 open and
close the case, both in the iptroduction Of
proof and in argument. tha the descendant
introduced one after the other > complete
chain Of proof. His commissions as District
Judge. his oath Of office. the rniputrs OF .ehe
District Co,lrt slDwing his induction into
Office. his commission as District Attorney
previously since 1872. and other evidence.
oral and documentary. showing that he had
practiced law since 1873 at least. and final
", the minutes of the Board of Administrat-
ors of the University Of Louisiana Of the
9th Of April, 1872. showing that the
degree of Bachelor Of Laws was conferred
upon him by that authority. duly chartered
body, corporate and polite. TO al this the
living upon the naked fact Of tho defendaet
to show q diploma or license from the Sn-
preme Court. The Court deems It unneces-
sary under this state Of facts to pass upon
the numerous legal questions 30 ably argued
on both sides. II is sufficient to say that the
defendant has fully established his eligibility
and his right to the privileges Of m attorney
at-law. under the degree conferred and ac-
cepted by him-Aan scted upon by him.of
Bachelor Of Laws. The other formalities
provided for by law the Court must presume
must be considered a. merely directory. II
becomes unnecessary to decide whether the
practice Of law under defendants commission
rs District Attorney would have fulfilled the
requirements Of the constitutional provision,
although the Court 10 inclined TO believe
that an authority to practice law on behalf
Of the State vested By election OF the people
under the constitution and by the Cover.
nor's conmission. would when carried eat
case endow the party holding such status
with full eligibility under articles 50 and 81
Of the Constitution. as9 H 4stA'
| For fhese reasons and others unnecessary