The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1880-11-13
The Cllcevers Case.
Full Text of the Supreme Courts Decree
Reversing the Ruling of Judge Hahn
in Favor of Defendants Exception.

Full Text of the Supreme Courts Decree
Reversing the Ruling of Judge Hahn
in Favor Of Defendants Exception.
STATE OF LOUISIANA, er rel. Attorney
General ct ais, rs. ,1no. A. Chcevers. Ap-
peal from the Twenty Judicial
sion.
Mr.. Chief Justice Edward Bermudcz
delivered the opinion and decree of the
court, il, words and figures following, to-
wit: Charging the ineligibility of the
defendant to the Office Of Judge Of tile
Twenty second Judicial District, the At
torncy General has instituted these pro-
cccdings against him before the court Of
his domcil, to prevent him for that
cause from entering upon tho discharge
Of the functions Of tlla' office.
10 Justify such demand, grave charges
were preferred against him under the
provisions of article III of the constitu-
ton. At the instance of the State a pre-
limnary Injunction issued, but was after
wards dissolved by this court. 81 A, G49
The defendant had excepted to the ju-
risdicton of the lower conrt on the
ground that the original cognizance and
determination of the matters involved
appertain exclusively to the Supreme
Court; but that exception was deemed
not to be before us at the time for re
view.
This action was brought before the de-
fentlant could have entered upon the lu-
ties of the oflice-tlat is, before the day
Oh which the Twenty second Judicial
District Court could have been organized
had arrived. Its object was to prevent
him from filling the office, for causes an
terror to and invali.latiny his election.
1t contemplated his exclusion, not his re-
moral from that office. We viewed the
litigation from that standpoint when it
first came before us. Although the ap-
plication for Il prohibition upon, which
we acted WAS lcvelled also at the qucs-
ton of jurisdiction, which was pending
in the District Court, we expressly alb
stained from passing upon it, because it
was not then in condition to be enter
tained and solved. AS it is now in a
proper form, we will proceed to examine
it.
The object of this suit can not be mis-
taken. The action was brought to prove
al impediment to obstruct the defendant
and prevent him from entering upon the
duties Of the office. lis character OF le-
gal complexion was not and could not be
changed or effected by the dissolution of
the injunction, nor was it altered BY any
subsequent proceeding to PROFOUND facts
which may, and no doubt have since hap
pened. 1t remains to-day in every re
spect with the same features which it
possessed ut the iucipiency Of the action,
viz: snit to prevent the induction into
Office Of the defendant, for canse of in
eligibility in existence prior to his cleo
tion.
The jurisdiction Of courts of justice,
particularly Of the highest tribunal of
the State, pronouncing in last resort,
sl onld be carefully measured in matters
of this description and should not be en-
larged SO as to embrace within its COM
pass eases which clearly were not in the
contemplation Of the trainers of the con-
stitution when they undertook to deter
mine and fix the extent and limits of its
authority as court Of original jurisdic-
tion and delegated to it powers which
up to then had been exercised exclusive
ly by the Senate, upon charges properly
brought.
The articles of the constitution which
define the original jurisdiction of this
court in cases of removal of designated
judicial officers, bear numbers 200 and
1876, and read as follows: