The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1880-07-24
The CheeYers (.ase.

The Cheevers Case.
Defendants Exception 70 tho Jurislictio,
Of the District Court sastained-An
Appeal Taken, Re1nrnable
ct Shreveport.
On Monday last, the 18th inst, Hon
Michael Hahn, Judge Of the Twenty
Sixth Judicial District, came to Donald
sonville to occupy the bench of til,
Twenty-secend District Court durin,
the trial Of the case involving the eligi
bility of Judge Cheevors. Court wa
opened pursuant to the adjournnent o
June 25th, present Messrs. +. b. Earhart
District Attorney, r. n. Sims, f. N. Pugl,
Frederick Dnffel and Paul Leclae, attor
neys for plaintiff, and Messrs. St. N. Bel
rault and James D. Augustin, for de
fendant.
JAdge Sims asked that the court orde
his name stricken from Tire roll Of plain
tiff's attorneys, and the request wa
granted.
The exception fled by defendant t.
the Jurisdiction Of the court rat;one ma
te,iGe, was then taken up for trial, anl
after interesting arguneats by Messrs
Beirault and Augusta on enc hand and
Messrs. Pugh and Dnffel OH the other
Judge Hahn took the matter under ad.
visemeilt until the following morning.
Tuesday morning the presiding Judge
read the following decision, sustaining
defendants exception:
STATE or LOUISIANA, ex rel. Atty. Gen. et
ais. vs.. JOHN A. CHEEvERs-s2nd Ja,l.
District Court, parish Of Ascension.
JUDGMENT ON ExcEpTtoN.
Some legal questions connected with
this snit have already been tried and de-
termined by the Supreme Court Of this
State. The Chief Justice, as the organ
of that Court, in stating the object of
this suit, said: The proceeding was not
ono to remove Cheevers, but one to pre-
vent him from entering on the discharge
Of the functions Of .Jui1e. and ,ltimata7y
to disqualify hiM absolutely" The Su-
Dreme Conrt ordered Ghecvars to no IN
Quoted into office; he has been indicted,
and has been for weeks. and ia now. in
the full exercise Of the duties and powers
Of the office. Considering these facts in
connection with q part OF the PRAYER in
plaintiff, d petition, this suit new assumes
the form and character of an action for
the removal from office Of a District
Judge. The ground on which his re-
moval is asked is based on article III of
the constitution of this State. which
reads as follows:
NJ
No person VINO At any tlmc may have been
.. colaec.or - .axes, Wnetner state parish Or
:.. =. "nu may nave Deen otherWlse
u. u WI VIII puHnc money, OF any portion
taereEl' Shall NC e!isaole 70 the General AS
tr.,st ,,,a, :" tia Gle uoc =. aoas, peoAt or
".asn h ~ .ne.eo1, anul ne shala !
a''n,. o",Iant;a ,s.1 ~ tne amount OF
SUI, .,.,.;s,, ~ anu ~ 1an puonc moneys
MI aoc...a..,. a. 49, w o'
,,;n% tho ;.r;s1 d q" e N, .l;s ae.
rgt;ose ,ante,;ne anJ his conns e -, oonr'
n,ant cn,,tends1 tha+ tha s Snmsa, ~ G alsu
noms c con1 tru az, ,nas s1 supreme court
taus ;n~o1v.5 y +h;s . sa;4 "'no 'a0 iia'-
o'l A.+;a,o N 1oe ~ - 'A 10 ea,..
+;ans +ha oa,.aa CIV soS'' .,. u: llen
S S,uas , at; oe',, noa III Mnlon Sae nlsnest
1,;,sh or;%oa IN a,,1 pe ,..a' - 10
, Nv f,sano ' 49, t., mlsueneanors'
; no 4o - ao:1eance III once,
.toon.s, o0ai ap.'oi', lasofltlsm.
..9n ~ opp..seiuu ~ ounce, gross
va o.4;o,o " .. nnai ln'oAieation.
~ g. '4'.o - Ply iueo el'''o-
For any ct the causes specified in article
iyo, Jnuyes OF eno courts OF Appeal, OF the
tha o., C'',n.s w tue etate ana o1
e remyroI from y, o aMs 'v n Ja waes may
supreme Court of this State in . sn;t ;n s
tuted by the Attorney General or \ District
in tho name 81 the State. On Ills
relation. The Supreme Court is hereby
vested with original jurisdiction to try such
causes {; and It Is hereby made the duty of
inc attorney Generai or ct any District At
.o ,cs. " ,lG.itu.e sucn SUIT on me written
d ! navers y ntc N ny ct'lzens ana
IN, .,-,
lne Ass.slaIure' nv an Act No. 1927
1ppioveo April ~ 1851, provided for the
y OF bringing ana trying all snits
lor =. Ine removal 1rom ohco OF any Judge
=! liz Ioul1s OF appear or OF the District
courts thronshoat the State for any
" " the causes specihed IN article 1876 of
Ine otate GO. constitution before the Supreme
court OF the state, ETC., but no law has
Oeeh passed regulating the trial OF suits
WIN similar OBJECTS based on the dis
lu IA! set forth in article III.
me question then arises, is the dis
mentioned in article III
embraced IN any OF the causes for re-
nova! mentioned in article 1867 and
must it be tried by the Supreme Court
lnder article 2oO, Or was it the intention
II the trainers OF our new constitution to
;reate . disqualification founded on