The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-05-20
ACT NO. 9.
BRIEF or MIX sAMB0LA, ATTORNEY
FOR sALOY AND sAEANTA IN
JUDGE MILTEaREREER's COURT.

In the cases OF the State agains. p sa,ov and
A. sarapaa, arrested under act No. Of ,s,s for
selling havana lottery Nckets against the
peace and dignity" of the Howard lottery
s"inuie h,f, a. oahoola r was lhe attorney sor
the detendaDts. These were Sse cases fh which
Judge Miltenberger rendered his great decj-
's.' lli7 oeu,' "ii' i7l.0rol'i.
ignore entirely act No. . OF the session OF 1874"
The following Ia a synonsis Of tho briat "a Mr.
saynhola aIad In Ybeso o.sas.
~ otI -
NIT. eamoola eokaended that act no was un-
of articles g. o. ard IA of tba stot, ennstss,,'
~ - - "' ''1 ''' VI 'no o'a'0 ''nS'fss
'iop,
lows EpefU lar shah cypress its object ~ Object
IN It's tWe."
The object or objects of the above law act No
| 81 are not expressed In its title
q. The word unlicen eed in law suggests the
idea Of wruten permission granted by the public
| authorities to carry on certain business or
| profession and does not convey the idea OF an
| authority to be conferred by private corpora
| tion which is rpaHy the object of tho so-eaIled
statute. % '''''00
pb. The words comforting on he police cc.srts
| The po,rer to suppress Np same: j. q. the nm
| licensed sale of lottery tickets, do not express
sons guilty Of any infraction or violation Of the
provisions of said statute. which is evidently
the object II . to Of It ,his u law law. !, -
| ing in this community. and the title of the act
does not announce that its object is to interpret
| the meaning of said word, which Is the object OF
| the second section of the act.
2 The act confers judicial powers Of criminal
nature on the police courts of the city of New
| Orleans, not as committing magistrates. in
! utter disregard Of the prohibtory provisions of
| article q of the constitution. which confers on
! the police courts the power to punish ouIy in
| ease 8 police regulation enacted by the city of
| New Orleans has been violated. which is not the
| case.
| g. The law is clearly violative OF article of
the constitution for under article a. of the con-
| stitution. the Legislature is prohibited from
| passing any police regulation the infraetfon
| Of which should be punished in any other way
| than the one pointed out in article G. which SAYS
that prosecutions shall be by indictment or in
| formation The accused shall be entitled to a
| speedy public trial by an impartial Jury of the
parish in which the offense was committed. nm
less the venue be changed" etc.
The South Carolina statute, imposing a
penalty of $4,000 On those VINO sell tickets in
lotteries not authorized by the laws of the State
or keep open office for that purpose is un-
| constitutional so far as it authorizes the tax
collector to issue execution for the penalty
without aconyiction by a Jury" State VS. Allen
| 2 MeCord. So.
T. Said act attempts to enforce crj1ninnIl,j nv
the instrumentaity and appliances of the Grim
tnal courts of the country the Dyjpnfe rights
real or imaginary of an individual or prirnfe
corporation (which is the same thing in VIOLA
| ton Of article Of the constitution tSse ad-
vertisement of Howard about his vested
| rights.l
Riaab A ,;,<J