St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1894-01-13
THE POLICE JURY CASE.

moved from office Messrs. Eraste Dupre ana
Adelma Guidry, Police Jurors of this parish
These parties proceeded at once to take out
writs of injunction preventing the appon-
tees, Messrs. Isaac Roos and }. j. Barry,
from taking their seats. Thereafter Mr.
Roos Instituted an action under the "mtfu-
sion into office Act to have Air Dupre re-
moved from office on the grolnds that said
Dupre unlawfully held the same to the pre-
judice of the petitioner, who was lawfully
entitled thereto by virtue of his appointment
as aforesaid.
The case was twice tried by jury, and
a verdict rendered in favor of defendant on
both occasions.
After tie rendition of the first verdict,
upon motion to that effect, new trial was
granted by the District Judge upon the
grounds that the verdict OF the jury was
contrary to the law and the evidence.
After the rendition of the second verdict,
without moving for new trial, the plain
tiff took an appeal to the Circuit Court This
court has rendered a decision affirming the
Judgment of the lower court. Under ord1n-
ary circumstances we would remain con-
tent with their finding, and say nothing,
but because of the far reaching consequence
tfounded as we believe'in error) we feel no
hesitancy in criticizing that opinion, and IN
endeavoring to establish that 1t is incorrect.
The Court Of Appeals declared that the
only point involved in the case was s'wheth-
= er police juror was State officer or not.
If the former, the Governors right of re-
moval existed, as we propose to show later
on: If the latter, the right did not exist.
Realizing the necessity of establishing
that police juror was State ofi1cer, plain
tfff,s counsel looked up the law and found
that the supreme Court of this State In
very recent case, sitting with full bench,
had decided the point at issue. In the case
of the State VS.. Taylor, reported In the A
La. Annual, Judge McEnery as the organ OF
the court held that a police juror was a
state ofricer, and gave as his reasons, among
others for so deciding, the following:
Article 159 of the Constitution provides
that NO person shall hold or exercise at the
same time more than one ONCE or trust or
profit except that of justice of the peace or
notaryipublic. In the Constitution OF ls4o
there was an Article OF similar import as fol-
lows THAT no person shall hold or eXereIse q
at the same time more than one civil ofl1ce
of emo1ument.' In interpreting this Afttcle
in the case of Doney VS.. Vaughan. . La. An
nual I55, the court held that the accePnantse nee
of the office of parish tax-collector by the
sheriff did not violate sa1d Article, as lne
office of parish tax-collector was muni-
cipal oce ana tnat lne aas tbs
holding of two State offices. lnthe Constitu-
ton Of 1852 there was a similar provision,
and it was held by this court that ponce nee
fntendment of Act l22. Since then, IN re
cent years, police Juries have been made
state officials by legislative enactment.
ghey are appointed by the Governor and
our DEGREES have recognized them as such.
and in State VS.. Newhause, - La; Annual
: s24. and state VS.. Jean, Southern Reporter
,sroh hn11 that the acc6DtancG OF the OF
flee of police juror by one holding the once
of jury commissioner vacated the latter
office If the office IS created by the leg1Sla-
lure or is established in the first instance
by the Constitution, 1T is State office, and
the holding at the same time two omces SO
created would manifestly violate Act. l59 Oh
the present Constitution. Conceding that
the member of a municipal council upon
which we express no optnion1 Is an oIncer'
IL is not a State office, and the Article NO.
l5g can have no application, as 1t has refer
ence only to holding at the same time TWO
state offices.
Judge Biackman, the organ of the Court
of Appeals, whilst expressing very pro-
found regard for the opinion OF that court,
nevertheless overued the same, and set up
his opinion as the law rather than adopt
their views as herein expressed
Now the question naturally arises, who IS
right the supreme Court, the highest legal
authority in the State, composed OF judges
Nichols, Fenner, Watkins, McEnery ana
Breaux, or the Circuit Court, composed OF
Judges Perry and Blackman? We unhesi-
tatingly pronounce in favor OF the supreme
court, and doubt not our readers Will agree
with us. We want this question agitated.
we want our views ventilated by the entire
bench and bar OF this state, to the end that
we may be able to ascertain what court 1t
is whose DEGREES we are to respect and bow
our heads to? Whether It shall be in obe-
dtence to the decree of an inferior court
overruling the opinion Of a superior tribunal
or to those of the superior court notWith-