The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1878-01-26

decision does not admit of review h,
any other authority upon that point
L say this not because there has beer
any attempt in this case to show tina,
the defendant was unworthy. I'm,
simply to meet that branch of the
argument, which is predicated upor
the supposed impropriety of allowing
men, twho may not themselves be
learned in the law) to admit persons
to that profession.
Ii the Board had the power to con.
ter, aud did confer on the defendant
the degree of Bachelor OF Laws, il is
manifest that it could not by an
&c parte and subsequent revocation
deprive him of the grant of any
rights or franchises flowing from it.
See &c parte Garland, 4 Wallace, D.
o4I. Tins view renders unnecessary
any discussion OF the motion of the
plaintiffs for new trial.
Having as | think shown that the
defendant lawfully held the degree of
Bachelor Of Laws, the next inquiry
Is, what rights and privileges did it
confer upon linn The law (Sec,
1859 K. S.,) answers the question. 1t
" snail authorize the person on whom
1t Is conferred to practice LaaU in this
State.n
What, if any, conditions precedent
are imposed upon this authority to
practice law In my humble opin-
ION there is but one, and that is that
he take the oath prescribed. Did he
take the oath is the next question
1t must be borne in mind that that
oath can admittedly be taken before
any Judge, Justice of the Peace or
Clerk of court i'll the State. they be-
ing authorized to administer oaths in
all cases. The defendant swears that
to the best of his recollectionhe did
take the oath. True, copy of the
oath is not produced, but the defend
ants statements aCere admitted ,cithOut
objections and are uBcOntradieted. We
think this ought TO be accepted, at
least rs prima .tacie proof, especially
when coupled with the legal presump-
ton resulting from a continuous. and
So far as appears, uDdisputed possess
session of the status and practice of an
attorney at law four years preceding
his election as Judge.
But it is argued that there was a
further condition imposed by law be-
fore he could practice. That it was
necessary for him to obtain a license |
from the Supreme Court. Section Ill |
and liz of the Revised Statutes are
cited as authority for this proposition.
Those sections are i'll substance as
follows:
Sec. Ill. Any citizen of the United
States possessing the quaffncations
except that of residence) necessary
% constitute legal voter, shall be
admitted to practice as an attorney
It law, ETC., upon obtaining a license
rom tho Supreme Court.
Sec. l12. The Supreme Court shall
rant licenses to applicants possessing
he qualifications required by the
sections, 1st: To all Qrad-
Gtes of the University who shall pro-
ace evidence of good character
nd: When they produce a license to
ractice law from any other State of
he Union or d diploma from any law
chool, ETC., with evidence of good
haracter, and shall have been exam
ned in open court touching their fit !
ess, ETC., and are found qualified
rd: When the applicants have been
,und qualified to practice law, ETC., :
J an examination before the Supreme
curt according to such rules and
7gulations as it may adopt from :;
me to time. | quote also Sec. 1I3: !,
Any foreign lawyer, on presenting
is license to any one of the Justices
the Supreme Court, or to any two #
istriet Judges, with evidence of n
laracter, ETC., when after being du,y t
ETC., shall be 10y said l
idges licensed to practice law in any /
i'd all courts of this State," etc. t.
Now do sections Ill and liz, fairly
convey the idea that no d
'e can practice law without licenae
ON the Supreme Court7 Sec. Ill Il
nply declares that "Any citizen a
,on obtaiEing license from this o
ourt, SHALL be admitted to practice as ii
attorney at law" etc. In other ST
Ords, a license from this Court shall tt
a sufficient authority to the holder te
practice. But is that saying that
one SHALL practice ercept he haze the le
ense Of this Court? Surely not, for al
at wofld put Sec. Ill in direct con- W
ct VITA Sec. lib, which says in SUBJ ia
lnce that any foreign attorney shall q
entitled to practice upon obtaining ii
license fTOmtw District Judges or cl
y Justice of this Court, and l sub st
it such construction of Sec. Ill 81
'uld also put it in conflict with Sec. al
SO, which declares that the holder gi
the degree of Bachelor of Laws b,
Inferred by the Board of Admins al
.tors shall have thereby authority
cense) to practice law in this State. n
lere is no more reason for requiring n
at the holder of such degree should =,
tain q license from this Court than n
ere is. for requiring it from the for n,
N attorney admitted by two Dis amc g.
ct or! zone Supreme Judge. Edo not g.
del stand that any one pretends that :,