The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-05-21
THE RIGHTS OF AN INFORMER.

James B. Kelly, an informer, acting In be-
half Of his employer, the Louisiana Lottery
by the attorney of which institution he is
represented, has applied on his own motion
to Judge Whitaker, of the Superior Criminal
Court, and obtained a writ Of certiorari, COM
handing Recorder Miltenberger to send to
the said court the records and proceedings of
the case of the State of Louisiana, on the
| complaint Of James b. Kelly VS.. P. Saloy,
charged with violation Of the provisions Of
act No. 8 of 1874, In order that said court may
cause to be done therein what by right and
law ought to be done. This is one of the cases
passed upon by Judge Miltenberger on Sat-
urday last. The petition goes on to recite act
No. of 1874, under which the arrest was
made, the circumstances of the arrest and the
decision Of Judge Miltenberger, declining to
exercise the jurisdiction conferred in that act,
or to enforce the penalties therein denounced
for the violation Of its provisions.
The petition claims that the manifest
error of Judge Mltenberger's decision has
operated "great damage" to the petitioner
Kelly. At first we were unable to see what
interest the petitioner in this case had
in criminal proceeding on the part of
the State against an offender against it's laws
which gave him a legal right to make him
self party to this application; but by refer
ence to the Infamous act under which the ar
rest is made we see that, as an infOrmer, he is
entitled to just twelve dollars and a half or
half of the fine imposed. We concede then,
freely and frankly, that James B. Kelly has
an interest in this criminal proceeding, which
is patent on the face Of the papers.
In consideration of this large interest of
twelve dollars and half, Mr., Kelly, in his
individual capacity, takes this proceeding,
which the State and the city both decline to
take part in, and seeks his personal relief
in the oppression of his fellowman.
1t is clear that such party has
no right to stand In Judgment in the name of
the State of Louisiana, whose only legal rep
resentatives are the Attorney General, or his
assistant, and the District Attorney of this
district. 1t appears to us passing strange
that this mere informer, with no interest save
a mere contingency OF twelve dollars and q
half. should have the power to put into oper-
alton the criminal machinery of our courts TO
enforce the collection of his fee, and in so
doing assume to stand in judgment for the
State of Louisiana, without invoking the in
PREVENTION and authorization of her legal rep
resentatives. We have no idea that the legal
authorities of the State were ever applied to
in this matter. The Lottery Company
and Kelly have simply assumed to
take charge of the enforcement of the
criminal code of the State on their
own individual responsibility, and we
must express our surprise that mere inform
or has been allowed, with the services of
hired attorney, to invoke the processes of the
criminal law for the enforcement, by its Sc
we're methods, of private interests, and these
of the most questionable nature. This would
be matter Of surprise even il the jurisdiction
of the Superior Criminal Court were beyond
dispute, which is not the case. In the light
of the recent decision Of the Supreme Court
in the Geale case, it is clearly without iuris-
ton ratione materiB ct persong. The offense
charged is a violation of statute imposing a
fine OF $25 or an Imprisonment of five
days, and this question Of fine or punish
ment is one which the said court can
neither directly nor Indirectly pass upon
under the law organizing that court. By the
act of 1874 creating that court, it is given the
power to issue writs of habeas corpus man
damus and all other processes only when
necessary or incidental to the exercise or en-
forcement Of it's jurisdiction. 1t is impossible
that the Superior Criminal Court can have in
any instance concurrent jurisdiction with
the Recorders courts, or an appellate iuris-
diction to correct the decisions of those
courts. The writ of certiorari can issue only
lo{o Tho :t,,+;
pressly declares that in such cases as this
where "any fine forfeiture or penalty i'm
posed by a municipal corporation shall be in
-"the appeal shall be direct
from the court In which the case originated
to the Supreme Court" And yet the Supreme
Court decided in the Geale case that it
had no appellate jurisdiction over the recor-
ders' courts. How then, can any pretext for
the exercise Of this jurisdiction on the part of
the Superior Criminal Court be found? 1t is
evident that Judge Whitaker has committed
a great mistake in granting the rule nisi in
this case, especially on the application of
mere individual, and we trust that he will
hasten to correct it.
Tomorrow we shall review the decision of
Recorder Smith in the cases Of arrest under
act No. 9, and tell exactly what we think
about it.
TO SUMMER TOURISTS.