St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1882-04-22
WORSE TIE MORE OF TT.

N-o4A - Y Soioeahsis SOiAAA6 "
light. The following case. just de-
cided by the Court of Appeals fol
the Second Circuit, is the latest:
Some time during the early part
of the year 1881 the Sheriff of East
Carroll Parish, NJ. S. Powell, pre-
sented to the Police Jury a claim
for $3.50 for service, including mile
age, in summoning jurors to attend
the District Court.
The Police Jury refused to pay it,
upon the ground that, under arti-
Gle 119 of the Constitution, he was
allowed salary not to exceed, in
that parish, $500. for all criminal
services, except certain things
specified; that he had been already
paid this salary; that the summon
ing of jurors was criminal service,
and that. under said article of the
Constitution, be was estopped from.
setting up any such claim.
He then brought suit against the
parish in the District Court, and
obtained judgment in his favor for
the full amoufft of his claim, and
costs. From this Judgment the
Police Jury took an appeal to the
Circuit Court. Tue case was tried
IN that Court at its regular term
last September, and the Court be-
ing undetermined regarding it,
held it under advisement until their
next regular term, which has Just
been concluded, when the following
decision was rendered in the case:
Both Judges delivered carefully
prepared and elaborate opinions,
Judge Mayo deciding that, under
the Constitution, ard all the laws
on the subject, the Sheriff was
clearly not entitled to anything as
claimed, as his demand was for SER
vices In criminal matters. Judge
Gunby delivered dissenting opin-
ion, taking the ground that, under
the law, the Sheriff was clearly en-
titled to 81 cents per capita for SER
vice ofjury summons, but that he
was not entitled to mileage, thus
cutting down the claim to only
$40.
Here the Court was confronted
with seeming serious difficulty.
While article 1O1 of the Constitu-
ton provides that whenever there
shall be disagreement, the iudg-
ment appealed from stands affirmed,
there appearsto be no provision for
u case like this-where the two
Judges disagree, but neither one
sustains the decision of the lower
court.
There being no express provision
in the Constitution to meet the
case, and that instrument explicitly
that '.in every case of
between the two
Judges constituting the court, the
Judgment appealed from shall stand
affirmed" the Court decided that,
one of the Judges thought
,he Sheriff was entitled to nothing,
and the other held that he was en-
titled to only $40, they were COM
oelled, by the requirements of the
Constitution, to affirm the iudg-
nent of the lower court, and to |
'ender decree in favor of the |
Sheriff for the full amount claimed,
$500, and costs, which they accord
ngly did. Motion for rehearing
vas filed and oyerruled.
We have called attention lately
o several sessions of the Circuit
Court, held in various parishes.
It which nothing was done, there
'eing either no cases on the docket,
r what few there were being post
'oned by consent. We regarded
his as evidence of the fact that the
'ourts of Appeal, as at present
onstituted, were useless; but if the
boye is fair average specimen of
hat they can do, when they once
ct settled down to business, then
e are forced to the conclusion that
hey are even worse than useless.
is right thai justice should be
lind, but it ought not to be tied {
AID and foot by the nonsensical
rovisiols of fatally defective,
l-conceived and only half-done
The Legislature, at
$ coming session, should provide {
'r suitable amendments to the {
institution, to the end that the |
ourts OF Appeal may be organ ]