The Opelousas courier., 1885-03-28

s
Calcasieu parish.-March Term, 1855
Appeal from the 2lst Judicial Dis
trict, Parish of st. Martin.
Clegg, j., delivered the opinion of the
Court.
On the End day OF September, 1884.
he District Attorney of the 21st Judi
ial District, upon the written request
IF more than ten voters and taxpayers
# the Third Ward of the parish of St.
Martin, instituted an action against
Joseph johnson, Justice of the Peace
of that Ward, for the purpose of remov-
ing johnson from office, alleging that
johnson sis totally incompetent to fill
said Office of Justice of the Peace,
aud to discharge and perform the du-
ties and functions of said Office that
lie said Joseph johnson does not pos
>ess the education nor knowledge of
he English language, and of our laws,
necessary to enable him to perform the
tuties'and functions of said Office of
Justice of the Peace" etc. Upon this
EDITION issue was joined.
A trial was had before a jury, the
serdict was in favor of plaintiffs, and
Judgment was %thereupon entered. re-
moving the defendant from office.
The form and terms of the petition Of
plaintiffs comply With all the require
'ments of Act No. 1876 of the General
Assembly. approved April 10th, 1880.
The resident citizens, or more than ten
of them, who sign the request to the
District Attorney to enter suit, and
whose names appear in the petition, are
shown to be taxpayers. In accordance
with the provisions of Section three of
the Act No. l35 of 1880, the defendant
was brought before the District Court
in person, and required to answer per-
tinent questions in writing, with his
own hand, and without recourse to the
assistance of any person, book, paper,
or memorandum. Only six simple ques-
lions We're ~propounded to him by the
District Attorney.
VIZ find in the record a bill of excep
lions to the ruling of the District Judge
which allowed the p%ropounding of ques-
ton number three. This question was
in these words: As a Justice of the
Peace, have you the power, uader the
law, to hold a preliminary examination
a cas- where the ofense charged
against the accused is not necessarily
punishable by imprisonment at hard
and to take bail 7" Counsel for,
for defendant urge this ruling IA error,
declaring that the question was .snot
pertinent to and in reference to the du-
ties of defendant in his ca pacity of Jus.
tice of the Peace" and that the use of
the phrases, .~spreliminary examination
and mot necessarily punishable at
hard labor tended to puzzle and con
fuse the defendant. The ruling Of the
District Judge.Was laconic. The rea-
son he gave was THAT the quessi on
asked concerned the duties of a Justice
the Peace"
The Constitution, defining the iuris-
of Justices of the Peace, SAYS I:
"They shall have criminal jurisdiction
az committing magistrates, and shall
power to bail or discharge in cases
not capital, or necessarily panishable
at hard labor" Constant. 1876.
If this question, in terms fuller and
than vas called for by the ex-
and one that the defendant
must have occasion most frequently to-
ask himself, is calculated to puzzle and
confuse him, in what a pitiable and
helpless state of mind he must find
himself upon the trial of a cause. befnre
him after hearing the argument of
counsel.
The question appears to as, TO be
to require an answer every
simemthe Justice is called upon to re
Give q criminal complaint, to have
p~r0pounded simply and fairly (;
ind the defendant should have been
IL ready with the answer almost as
as he could have declared his
name. provided he had ever read
he Constitution of the State.
Joilnson's answer is in these words,
do nnt spell the words precisely AN
does1. "Unnder the law Justice of
he have no Jurisdiction when The pm
shmrnt is hard labor in the Penit+n
larry 4
We are unable to agree with counsel
defendant 10 their statement that |
his answer .siss responsive to the ques-
ion, and shows that johnson knows
lis duties and Jurisdiction in the mat
er - because, in our opinion, the only
answer TO 'auestian number
would be, simply "Yesn-and
he stafeipent in the answer il nOf true
ii Law, for Art. l26 of thu Constellation
ays. sthey lJnstiees nf P+ac4) shall
.age criminal jurisdiction as committing
Magistrates, efc." Sre also Revised
Statutes, Secs. 2053. 205s, ct SEQ. We
therefore, find no error iii the ruling Of
he District Judge, allowing question
taree to be p~roponnded.
As we have stated, the only evidence
us In the issue of incompetency
i contained In defendants answer to
he six questions. His counsel contends
hat s.they are satisfactory and intelli-
,ent,n and established beyond d doubt
lis competency for the ofice.p
We will quote one exactly as it APP
,ears Id the record. To the question
number two) "what is the Jurisdiction
if the Justice of the Peace in criminal
he answered thus: ssQuestion
10. 2 Justices of the Peace have iuris-
LECTION 10 Boath Civil and Criminal
,auese.n
The other five answers are equally
Is good and as responsive to the qurs
ions p~ropounded. These six answers
obtaining ID all about one hundred
nd thirty words. show more than
hirty grammatical mistakes or errors.
Fifteen of his ~neighhars residing in
be same ward with defendant have