The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-12-07
A CASE IN POINT.
Who Is Criminal sheriff Decision Of
Judge whitaker.

Louis O'Grady and Matt. Gaiennie were or
trial before the Superior Criminal Court yes
terday. They are charged with the murder o.
Paddy Jones on the twenty.ffth of August
1878. Before the evidence had been heard Judge
Cotton, attorney for the accused. filed the fol.
following answer:
Defendant now comes into court. and being
arraigned l. to the bar to proceed with his trial on
the charge of murder, says:
That he objects to the trial on the ground that
the court Is Improperly constituted
/. Because this court Ia now trying cases with
ont a legally constituted or appointed sheriff.
2. without q sheriff there can be no court.
3. There is no sheriff; one James ID. Houston
pretending to act as sheriff when, in fact and
IN truth, he is now occupying a public %salaried
Office. to wit: that Of administrator of Public
improvements of the city of New Orleans.
4. His acce ptanee of the office IF administra-
tor as aforesaid, vaeates ipSo JactO the office
lust previously held by him, to wit: that OF
sheriff of this court.
can hold more than one Office of honor, salary
or trust, except one be that OF justice of the
peace.
G. That summoning Of witnesses, the notice Of
| t. ial by persons not authorized, and all other
| proceedings In the trial of this cause are null
and void for want Of a legal organized court.
BY reason Of this answer Mr.. Houston was
sent for to prove whether he was still criminal
sheriff. At IL o'clock he came before the court
and said that he was still acting as criminaI
SHsTiH, uhVIuk uuhllneu us SuUu TWO years ago
and that his commission was spread on the
minutes of the court. He further stated that on
the fifteenth ultimo he qualified before the Sec
ond District Court as Administrator OF I'm
provements. and took his place as such on the
eighteenth. and that he is now acting as Grim
inal sheriff and in the above mentioned capacity
OF Administrator.
Judge Cotton for the defense and Attorney
General Ogden for the State argued the murder
case.
Judge Whitaker decided that Mr.. Houston
could act in both capacities until Mr.. Fitz-
patrick had filed his commission, and ordered
the case to proceed, as all witnesses were In
court.
The counsel for the defense then took the
following bill Of exceptions:
Be it remembered that on the above case be-
ing called for trial, and before the Jury was i'm
panaled. the counsel for defense moved the
court to continue the case for the reasons and
grounds set forth in the motion annexed and
made a part hereof for greater certainty, aud
the testimony of J. ID. Houston taken on the
trial of said motion, which Is also hereunto an
nexed and made part hereof. and that the court
was not legally organized to try and dispose Of
the cause
Attorney General Ogden opposed the motion
by stating that a person could. without violat.
ing the provisions OF the constitution. hold both
q State and a municipal saiaried office.
Judge Whitaker did not entertain the excep-
tons alleged, and ordered the ease TO proceed.
but owing TO the absence of Mr.. Simeon Bel
den, of counsel for the defense. the case was
continued.