The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1880-05-29
Cheeyers VS.. Duhel.
Text of the supreme Courts Decision De-
claring the Right Of Judge Chez
yers to Assume. his Office.

No. 1881, State Of Louisiana tr rel.
John A. Cheevers, rs. Henry L. Duffcl, ct
ais.
Mr.. Chief Justice Bermudez delivered
the opinion and decree of the Court in
the words and figures following, to-wit :
John A. CbceveTs was . candidate at
the last election for the Office Of Judge
of the 22nd Judicial District Court in
this State, and obtained a majority Of
votes cast for that position. This result
having been announced III the manner
required by law, lie was commissioned as
such Judge by the Governor on the 9Th
of January, 1880, and took the oath Of
office on tile 26tl Of the same month. On
the I'd Of April following, a petition was
filed in the name Of the State, by the At
torney General and the local District At
torney, before the Fourth Judicial District
Court, charging, for stated reasons, the
ineligibility OF Cheevers, to the office of
Judge Of the 22d Judicial District Court,
and asking for an Injunction to prevent
him from entering upon said Office.
The Judge then presiding over the
Fourth Judicial District Court, granted
the order, and the detendent, Cheevers,
was accordingly forbidden from acting
as Judge of the 22d Judicial District.
On the 9TH Of April, the day on which
the 22d Judicial District Court was to
have been organized under Art. 1854 Of
the Constitution, Cheevers did not with
the usual solemnity attending such acts,
open Court and enter upon his functions ;
but H. . Dutfel, by whom the order Of
injunction had been issued, as Judge of
the Fourth Judicial District Court,
claiming to be still the Judge of that
Court and to he the acting Judge Of the
Twenty-Second Judicial District Court,
and considering himself authorized in
the premises, assumed to open and or
gallize the said Court.
On April 18th following, under the
same belief, and claiming to act in the
same capacity, he assumed again to open
the said Court.
Then and there, Clreevers the defend
amt in said case objected to the course
pursued by said acting Judge, and of
fercd protest which was not allowed to
be filed. 70 such refusal q bill OF eX-
ception was reserved.
On the 10Th of April, John A. Cheeycrs,
in the name Of the State, applied to this
Court for a writ Of prohibition to pre-
vent the State officers already mentioned
and said acting Judge, from further pro-
ceeding i'll the case brought against him
as before stated, and prayed for general
relief. The Court allowed q restraining
order, and issued II rule to show cause
why the prohibition asked sllonhl not he
made perpetual.
The grounds relied on by Cbeevers are :
1st That the Fourth Judicial District
Court was without jurisdiction to take
cogliiz unce of and try the suit in question.
ID. That FL. l.. Dutfel late Judge of
the Fourth Judicial District Court, was
absolutely incompetent and without any
power TO preside over the ed Judicial
District Court,
81. That neither Of said two Courts
had the power to enjoin and restrain a
commissioned District Judge from ell
tering anto his Office and upon the dis
charge Of his duties.
The defendants have made separate
returns antagonistical to the prctensions
Of John 4. Cheevers in this Court for
the relief sought and explanatory Of their
conduct.
The grounds upon which tue relator
relies, and upon which the respondents
resist him are 50 intimately connected
and blended that it is hardly possible to
pass npon the one without determining
the others. We shall therefore deal with
ill of them simultaneously. We are
clear that the convention Of 1879, in
tended that at the adoption of the con-
stitution which it framed, the judiciary
system created and established under the
constitution Of 1868 should cease and
should be superseded in the manner and
at TN, ti,o,, ,,r,yi,loI for Inv. tl,o,p in fbn
new organic law. Article 257. .....
The Fourth Judicial District Court,
whose territorial Jurisdiction embraced
James and Ascension, was to exist no
1850; and two courts were created by
ton was to extend over that territory,
namely: The 22d Judicial District Court
over the parishes Of st. James and Ascen
over the parishes of st. Charles and St.
John the Baptist besides the parish Of
Jefferson, which previously was subject
to another jurisdiction. Commissioned
and sworn as he was, as Judge of the 22sl
Judicial District Court, John A. Chez
vers would On the 5tll day Of April, 1880,
have physically entered upon the dis
charge of his official duties, but for the
injunction forbilding him from doing so.
Relying upon Article III Of the Constitu-
ton of 1879, which provides that certain
classes of persons shall he for certain
causes Ineligible to any Office of trust,
profit or honor under the State govern
ment, and rreferring certain grave
charges against Checxeis> the State rep
resented by its officers, brought the snit
already mentioned, and enjninesl him
from acting as Judge Of the 22d judicial
District Court.
Had the Fourth Judicial District Court
the right OF entertaining such u suit J 1t
may have had so far us the proceedings
contemplated Il Judgment to declare
Cheevers ineligible, but this is not :.
question that we can now determine and
which may come hereafter on appeal.
The Fourth judicial District Court could
not, however, issile, as it did, an in,;unc-
ton against Cheevers, who had been
commissioned and sworn Us Judge of the
22d Judicial District Court. The allie
CATION, verified by affidavit, that, uni, IS
the Injunction issued, the State would
sustain irreparable injury, can not, it
would seem to Us, be justitiable by amy
assumed state OF facts, for we can not re-
alize what damage, reparable or not, the
State would suffer in the event that
Cheevers had gone into office.
The proceeding was not one to remove
Cheevers, but one to prevent him from
entering on the discharge Of the func-
lions Of Judge Of said Court, and u}ti-
mately to disqualify him absolutely
Had the suit been to remove him after
induction, no Injunction could have
been issued, even ~ the Supreme Court,
(Articlc 2on), t" prevent him from fur
thcr performing judicial acts.
Tue suit brought would have continued
without such restraining process and
would have ended only by Il final adju-
Gic;ltion of the matters at issue, SO i'm
portaut,is it that judicial officers, partic-
II II - Ito \ I M