The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1901-11-23
A Miscarriage of Justice.

rehearlng IN the case of Hart III i.
Sandoz VS.. E.. P. Veazie. just
before its adjournment last sum-
mer q decree was rendered by JUS
tlce Monroe reversing the verdict
of the jury in favor of the PLAIN
tiff, the reasons assigned being
based on the testimony of the de-
fendant entirely, thus disregard
ing the strong and convincing
proofs adduced on the trial in the
District Court which conclusively
showed his liability to the plain
tiff for the damages his malicious
prosecution entailed. The decree,
while making no question of the
justice Of the acquittal of the
plaintiff of the criminal charge,
excuses the defendant in the civil
action on the ground that even
conceding plaintiffs innocence
the testimony shows that defend
ant acted without malice and upon
sufficient evidence to warrant him
in making the affidavit.
Counsel for the plaintiff having
examined the decree and being
convinced that it was erroneous,
undertook to point out to the
Court the errors complained of,
and so prepared an elaborate brief
on an application for a rehearing.
They hoped that, when the mis-
takes into which it had fallen were
pointed out, the Court would have
no hesitancy in reopening the
case, but in this they were disap-
pointed, for the Court without
giving its reasons for the action
taken simply refuses to grant a
rehearing in the case.
We publish on our second and
third pages the brief on the ap-
plication for the rehear!ng, and
in our humble opinion the failure
of the Court to meet the specifi-
cations of error boldly presented
in this brief is an acknowledge
ment of the incorrectness of its
| Judgment. These specifications
are leveled at the decree written
by Justice Monroe and point out
plainly wherein he erred in re-
versing the verdict of the jury
and the Judgment based thereon;
and it seems to us that in the
Iipht, 0f such conclusive proofs
that there was gross error in
changing the judgment from one
in favor of the plaintiff to one in
favor of the defendant, that the
Court should have granted re-
hearing and given the entire
Bench an opportunity of passing
on this important case.
The action of the Supreme
Court in thus brushing away the
Judgment in favor of the plaintiff
not only deprives him of the dam
ages which jury of his country
men awarded to him, but throws
the cost of the litigation upon
him. The reward here given to
the man who has been grossly
wronged by another and who ap-
peals to the Courts for redress is
indeed a sad commentary on our.
laws, if this be law. If a false
and malicious charge can be
brought by one citizen against an
other and the latter be exonerated
by the grand jury and the petit
jury, and finally secure at the
hands of another jury a unani-
NOUS verdict awarding him dam
ages for the wrongful act, and the
appellate Court can thus set aside
| the action of these tribunals on
the plea sthat the jury may have
misunderstood the law" we may
say in all earnestness that the law
| in regard to malicious prosecution
| is dead letter in the State of
Louisiana and should be repealed.
lie the appellate Court is going to
decide cases Of this kind on the
testimony of the defendant and
disregard the crushing evidence
Eof his guilt, will anyone look to
the law for redress in such con-
ltingency
We invite a perusal of the brief
published in this issue of our pa
per. It will give the reader an
adequate idea of the jus
| tice of this outcome of a
case which has attracted wide-
spread attention and it will throw
some light on the facts of this
matter. Much evidence was with
iheld by the counsel for the plain
tiff more damnable to the cause
Iof the defendant than any that
was adduced upon the trial, on
| the ground that it was unneces-
sary to present it--that success
was certain without it. But
lwhile their judgment was good so
4 far as the lower court was con-
Icerned, it seems that the Supreme
Court needed some more Of that
character of proof, which might
[have opened their eyes to the true
situation and have thus prevented
La miscarriage Of Justice and the
i grave injury which has resulted
therefrom to the plaintiff.
= i