The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1891-01-01
Parish site Question.
JUDGE j. F. BooNE's OPINION,

This suit is brought by the Mayor
of Haughton to compel the Police
Jury to complete the returns of the
election held on the 23d day of No
vember, 1888, as sent into them by
the commissioners of election, as
shown by their proceedings of Nov.
a, 1888, y = and to proclaim
the result as thus compiled, and to
have their President to issue his
proclamation declaring the result as
thus compiled, pursuant to Act 33 of
1885,"
Respondents except to the juris-
diction of the Court, and that rela
tors petition discloses no cause of
action. They answer generally deny
ing the. allegations of relator, plead
res GdjadicGta, allege that they COM
pleted their work as board of can
vassers on the 28th day of November,
1883, and have proclaimed theresult,
and as q board of canvassers are
fstnetas o6icSo. They further allege
that the parish seat OF Bossier has
already besn removed to Benton un
der the election held Nov. %, 1883,
by the authority of act SO of 1888,
etc. Without discussing all the ques-
tons raised by respondents, it seems
clear that unless this suit is for the
purpose of having the Court to pass
upon and decide question of con-
tested election, and the only object is
to require officers to perform minis
terial duties, there would be no ques-
ton as to jurisdiction. The doctrine
is clearly announced in the case of
State ex rel. Woodruff vs.. Dortch,
and in numerous other decisions that
Courts have the right to require the
performance of such duties and will
enforce them by mandamus. Re
spondents argue that the Police Jury,
as q board of canvassers, have dis
cretion and that their duties are not
purely ministerial. In the case of
Woodruff vs.. Dortch, the Supreme
Court used the expression in deciding
it, ''the Court was asked to take from
them (the Police jury duties involv-
ing discretion, and to discharge those
duties ITSELF" etc. In interpreting
the decision and language of the
Court in that case it would appear
! that fair construction of that Ian
guage could only be on the question
of discretion, that the Court only
meant to apply the term to such dis.
cretion as such officers do have, i. e.,
to decide whether the returns sent
them by the commissioners are genu-
inc; are they signed by the commits
sioners and properly authenticated,
etc. This discretion is certainly vest
/ ed in boards of canvassars.
The plea of res adj@dieGtG seems
to be based upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in case of same plain
tiff and same defendants as in this
case decided in October, 1890, at
Shreveport. If the objects of the
suits are indentical, the reliefsought,
the same, the plea would be good
In the former case, relator, believing
that the action of the Police jury on
the 9th of November, 1888, and the
proclamation by Dortch as their
President following same, settled the
question as to which place had re-
ceived the greater number of votes
cast at the election, and its sole OBJ
iect was to compel the respondents
to carry out the provisions of the law
inrelation to furnishing Courthouse,
etc., at the place selected for the new
Parish Seat; in that case the Supreme
Court held there had been no compi-
lation of the vote on 9th of Novem-
Der, 1888, and no proclamation au-
thorized for same.
The object of this suit is to compel
respondents to compile the vote from