The St. Mary banner. (Franklin, Parish of St. Mary, La.) 1889-1931, 1906-04-07


) set ing up matters of fact and e>toppels t
be tried on the merits of the case.
J. The hrSt exception of the defendant
u that the proceeding, should be .again>
4 | the Parish 1T It. ; AIRY. cOntending tina
The citation on the Police Jury through it
! | President, Jas. A. Peterman. Is not Il pro
ceedinG against the proper parties or
proper citation. There is little, if any
merit in this contt ntion. The whole ac
ton is directed against the Police Jury
1t is only through the Police Jury that vol
can bring into court the Parish of ST Mary
The Police jury represents that parocha
corporation, and All action az inst it, with
|, Il citation on ITS President. is proper
The objection to the sutticiency of the af
tidavit. which is the second exception
OF the defendant, is, in my judgment. no,
well taken. Each Of the plaintiffs has
| sworn that the facts contained in the pc
| tition are true and correct. This, | thnk
is sufficient
| The question then is does the plaintiff, :
petition disclose cause or right in them
| to the Injunction: his question has been
thoroughly and ably argued, some six or
seven hours being devoted to the argument
thereof. In reaching a conclusion on this
| branch OF the Gaze, we Will forego any dis
cu>>lon OF the argument pro and con, but
have given same thorough study and
| consideration.
There is no doub: nut that it is the duty
| Of the Police Jury of the Parish of It. Mary
| to furnish the citizens Of the parish a
good and sufficient" court house. lhis
| i made Their imperative duty by section
2746 of the revised Statutes. 1t is claimed
| by pia ntl1s. however, that the Police
| jury has done this: that the present court
! house amply provides for all the needs and
| wants of the people of the Parish Of Il.
Mary and that the Police jury is without
| authority to dcmolI>h this court house and
| erect another.
The supreme Court of this state in the
| ease Of Dupuy ct ais ". The Pollc- Jury If
| lbervlle, in its decree handed down on
March 18th. 1906. re a liirncl its former de-
cree III the >alle cause when il was before
| the court on an appeal from the order dis
solving on bond the injunction sued out
by the plaintiffs in said cause. In that
case TIE court said, in its syllabus:
Nv neither Police jury. in undertaking
t. build Il new court house upon IL new
site al the parish seat is acting wisely or
unwisely in view Of the alleged suitable
ness OF the old site and the alleged prob
abb llty that such action will at some futll. e
ime involve the building of Il new Jail, is
"A question which presents nothing upon
which this court can act since the di>cre-
ton vested in the Police Jury H. such mat
tiers Is not subject to judicial control''
1t il contended, however. that the prin-
ciplc announced in the ease lust cited does
not apply to the case at bar because in the
case at bar the Police Jury has provided
:. good and suitable court house 1t is
certainly fact that the Parish of St Mary
has court house, but the question as to
whether or not it is good and sufficient
court house must be left 20 the determin
alton of some body of men. 1t il presumed
that in course of time ali buildings become
useless and unit of occupancy. and some
times unsafe. 1t Is also a fact that lncreas-
ed population in places and increase of !
business will call for public buildings of |
greater.capacty. That being true il ne
cessarly follows that some body of men
mrst have it to determine when this
condition has arisen, Now, the Police |
Jury in the present instance have resolved |
and corcluded that the present court house
no longer fills the wants of the people.
that it is not good end sufficient court /
house; that neither the recO DIS nor the Oc-
cupants Of lid building a. e safe within its
walls. In s.ying this, have they exceeded
the discretionary powers that the court
says in the Dupuy case, is not subject to
judicial control? The law has certainly |
not provided for this to be determined by a
court of inquiry. This question seems to me
to be answered also by the Depuy case in
The courts q cree OF March 10Th wherein
the court says:
1.-The wisdom or expectancy of abandon
ing an old court house building is matter
of discretion vested in the Police Jury,
over which we have no control"
The court having, MS | read this decision
held that the Police Jury is vested with
this discretionary power, it would neces-
sarily follow that before an inferior court
will issue restraining order preventingI
the Police Jury from exercising this dis
cretionary power and doing what in its
judgment it feels is its duty under the law
TO the people, the plaintiffs would have to
make strong showing of fraud. manifest
cip,, AI,,p
the Police Jurors before the writ of in
junction would issue. An illustration of
his doctrine is strongly presented in the
case of State eX rel Kuhl an vs.. Judge,
18th An. p. SO. where the court sald
"When a party seeks, through the arm
IF the judiciary. to direct or control or
regulate the performance of public duties
oy officers of another department of the |
government, pleadings of an exceptionally
specific character. showing exceptionally
strong facts in aid of the relief asked, must
De presented to a court to justify its as
'uming jurisdiction.
''Mere conclusions Of law. or conclu-
,ions of ultimate fact, will not suffice: nor
,hould the pleader take anything by fail
ng to bring to the knowledge of the court
he condition of affairs which he NUT be
ware Will eventually be advanced in de-
e lSe.'
In the body of this same decision, it i,
said: ut Is of the utmost importance
hat the different departments of the Sta.e 3
should not clash, but that each should pur-
ue its legitimate functions free from in
reference from the other. That there
nay be cases of such character Il, to force
he Judiciary to the discharge of its duty
o review, to declare null and void ami to
et aside acts Of the legislative nr execu-
department. is beyond question: but as we
lave sad, the occasion which would re. |
luire it to do 80 at the instance of an in
iividual citizen by way of Injunction |
which would at once eX partc restrain and
'hange Temporarily at least) the course
which public affairs would naturally have
ollcwed but for the in JUNCTION, must be
lear and patent" l.
This seems to be the universal doctrine
II our Supreme Court. This same doe
nine. thuu.l Ii different Iaunuanr W..