The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-05-28
CERTIORARI.
THE CASE ARGUED YESTERDAY be-
FORE THE SUPERIOR GRIM
INAL COURT.
Judge Albert VOORHEES, Makes an Able,
Exhaustive and Conclusive Argument
The Case Taken Under Adylsement

a judge. Albert VOORHEES, Makes an Able
Exhaustive and Conclusive Argument
The Case Taken Under Amusement.
q From 10 a. m. up to nearly o'clock in tn
afternoon Judge Whitaker was engaged II
4 hearing the arguments in the cases OF tn
State ex rel J. B. Kelly vs. the Recorder O
r the Second Recorders Court, wherein writ
9 of certiorori were prayed for against said re
cortier, for releasing two men who had vic
lated the provisions of act No. 8 of 1874.
Judge Braughn opened the case for the re
lator by reading printed brief of his arg1
ment and developing the principal point
thereof. He begins by giving a history of tn
T case, which is well known to the public. Ii
then reviewed at length the decision of Judg
Mitenberger, and pretended to show wha
was the jurisdiction power, etc. of recorders
His argument is based on these points:
1. What is certiorari. and what courts ma,
issue the writ?
+ D. Has the Superior Court for the parish Of
, Orleans the right to issue the writs2
3. At whose instance may the writ be award
cd and at what stage of the proceedings?
4. In what cases does the writ lie2
3. Do the writs lie In the present case?
To support his argument the counsel trots
out whole list of imposing authorities from
every court and statute possible
Judge VOORHEES,. of counsel for the recorder
then rose to argue the case and after few
PREDATORY and explanatory remarks. spoke az
follows:
The counsel for relator contends that the Su.
pertor Criminal Court has unli limited criminal
jurisdiction. II this is not what he said, then
his argument Is of no weight.
No one can extend the construction of the act
creating the Superior Criminal Court.
perior Criminal Court has unmired criminal
jurisdiction. and assimates it to the Court of
Kings Bench In England. with its unlimited
jurisdiction over all offenses. from treason
| down to the smalles offense known to the law,
and with its unlimited power of control of and
SUPERVISION over all judicatures of inferior
If that be true. and If The Superior Criminal
Court has such criminal jurisdiction and power,
"a claimed by relator.
But such is not tho case. In the first place
this court is one of limited and special jurisdic-
ton in criminal matters. 1t is court created
! by STATUTE and carved out of the existing con
stitutionalIy created court of criminal jurisdic-
| tion in the parish Of Orleans.
| The Su"erior Criminal Court has jurisdiction
| over oHenses specially enumerated in that
statute over none other, And the statute,
it's jurisdiction. 1t is provided that in the ax
erclse of its jurisdiction over these designated
otfenses this court shall have the powers of the
highest court of criminal jurisdiction concur
rently with the First District Court and that il
may issue habeas corpus writs in ali cases hnt
other wrfts and processes only in aid of its ju-
risdiction
There is not word In that statute, or any
other statute. comforting upon this court. nay
upon any other court of criminal Jurisdiction,
the unlimited powers of the Court of King s
Bench; And In our courts of Iudicature of
well defined and special jurisdiction and
prerogatives can be claimed by any court,
Counsel argues that the grant of the pov2ers
OF highest criminal jurisdiction In matters of
a grant of the absolute powers and unlimited
jurisdiction of the Court Of Kings Bench. Such |
c9nstruetion. besides being forced one, |
would be obnoxious to q grave objection: ii |
would be In violation of article ZIG of the consti
tuition, which declares: The General Assembly |
shall never adopt any system or code of laws by |
general reference to such system or code bit |
~ az cases sha0 specify the sereral provisions Of
the lar 1t may enact
Granted that the statute of 1874 coptemplates
the adoption of that system of the common law
relative to the writ of cefiordyi under discus
sion. then the adoption is null and void, since
1t Is made by general reference and not by
specifying the subject matter
10 argue that the adoption Of the common
law, proceedings In 1905, for the exercise of the
when no right of control or supervision was
even limited at. and when there could be no oc-
c G, to have recourse to such writs. is simply
listed here previously to the statute creating
the Superior Criminal Court. or it was intro
duced by that statute
-
once to the act of 1906 is q false preense. And
IL it was part of our system Of criminal ju is
prudence, then it is false, to say that it was in
by the statute Of 1874.
Besides. 1t would follow that. If this writ was
part of our Jurisprudence since 1905, then the
First District COURT was constitutionally invest
ed with the prerOgative and would be alone en-
titled to supervise and control the recorders
courts.
special jurisdiction. having cognizance, not
over all otfenses generally but limited to GER.
tain crimes and ofenses and categories of
crimes and offenses. 1t has all the powers neces-
ass INFLATED to the Court OF Kings Bench. with
its unbounded right of control and supervision
and with its unlimited jurisdiction for the trial
of all otfenses from the highest to the lowest.
Secondly. the recorders court is one of a
ting magistrates. by special permission of the
conStitiOn art. "a.
The recorders can try no crimes or minor
the police regulations of the city of New Orleans
When an otfense is created by statute of the
he and 1a IS
more especially under the Limitation OF the
constitution of 1868. which has expressly omitted
the 124th article Of the previous constitutions
granting the recorders the right to try interior
otensees not only of municipa q. character. but
also of such as come under State appellation.
See State vs. Gutierrez, Is An. 1874
Such being the extremely limited functions of
recorders. under the present constitution. it
follows that act NO: OF 1874, creating an of1ense
by statute of the State. cannot copstitutonally
fall within the jurisdiction OF the recorders.
They cam OF try such otfensea.
Here is a dill emma, besides Either the
charge preferred against the lottery ticket
vendors Ia New Orleans is in the nature of a
criminal prosecution. or OF civil prosecution.
II criminal. then clearly, article "a Of the con-
stitution d, bars the recorders from all jursdic-
ton to try the offense
If civil. then the mattel pertains to the juris-
diction of the civil court. by action qnj tam to
anf nay of tha Ifv hat
clearly cuts off the recorders Jurisdiction.
Thirdly-The essential requisites Of the issu-
ance of the writ of ce,tiordri are court of
superior general jurisdiction. having jursdic-
ton to try or Investigate the ofense. in case
of removal from the inferior court, or to deter
mine that the inferior court does transcend its
and usurp functions
Such is the case as to the Court of Kings
Bench: Its universal jurisdiction to try all
as consequence. all proceedings of Inferior
courts. II that court had no right to try an Of