The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1905-05-23
POOL ROOM CASE

POOL ROOM CASE.
State Of Louisiana VS. \. F. AIa1Oncy
Where a district Judge ovcrrulcs a lie
mt1rrcr to the evidence aI1uccd in q
render Judgment on the mcrits-flnds
the accused guilty and sentencing him
the Supreme Court can not on appeal
go behind the Judgment and decide
whether the Judgment and sentence
were sustained by the law and the cvi-
dencc submitted to the caurt
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
is confined to questions Of law It can
pass (undcr a bill of exccptions) upon
the adn,issihility of evidence received in
4 case, but not upon its effects after it
has reached the jury, or in a case tried
by the court alOnc-after it has been
submitted and acted on by the judge
The Supreme Court will not pass upon
certain questions unless brought before
it under bill of exceptions but it docs
not follow because bill Of exceptions
has been taken that it will pass upon
Them. Issues raised mt1st be such as fall
within the appellate jurisdiction and
that they were presented at the time
and in manner and form required by
law and the ruels of practice
Great latitude is given defendants
in erin inal cases in assigning in the
trial courts grounds for a new trial. The
right to apply for new trial and the
authority given to the trial court to
grant the same are the great remedies
afforded by the law-rnal1er for the as
of and relief from error
and injury, but many of those grounds
,an never he assigned in the Supreme
Court on appeal. Complaints urged
which if we'll founded would result in
complete rejection Of and bar to the
lcton find no place in motion for
lew trial.
Parties who submit their cases for
rial on certain testimony introduced by
consent occupy the same position which
hey would have done had the State Con
defendants applcation) furnished bill
If particulars covering the condition Of
ffairs which that testimony disclosed
Defendant can not claim that he was
lot informed of the nature and charac-
er of the accusation against him. Judg-
nent rendered under such circumstances
ONES in aid of and cures defects in the
Indictment and vagueness of the law.
Io4 La. 4o7.) o
Motions in arrest of Judgment are to
e disposed of on errors apparent on the
ace of the record. The court can not
xamine, discuss and act on the testi-
nony adduced on the trial, though
opied in the transcripts. Act No. 1913
# 1904 is not unconstitutional as viola
i've of Article 81 of the Constitution of
SoS. A law is not unconstitutional be-
ause of the generality of its terms.
Parties indicted under statute very
eneral in its terms can obtain relief by
equiring bill of particulars of the
barge against them, and on the trial,
he things not intended by the law
maker are read out of the law. (52 An.
o2.) Judgment affirmed.
By Associate Justice Land:
D. c. Smith VS. Minden Lumber
Company.
While plaintiff. a sawyer, was in a |
topping position in the narrow space
o inches wide, between the sawyer's |
latform and the log-deck, and engaged
n removing sawdust which had accum-
lated beneath the platform and around
he levers, his coat was caught by the
ollar of the shaft beneath the og-deck,
nd plaintiff 5 arm was broken and his
l1oulder dislocated One Of the screws