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

Il PIalntlffS request the court to teiec
5 all such exhibits and to refuse to en-
S terrain any evidence whatever of an,
: matters depending upon proof either
J oral or documentary
The answer and document, were on.
: dered filed, and the question "a, t,
e whether or not they should be allowed
or considered by the court to be ar
gued and decided in deciding the aues-
tlon OF the right Of the plaintiffs to The
in junction.
Following the trial Of the rnie. the
plaintiffs filed supplemental petition
IN which they make q part of their
petition the printed copy Of the pro
ceedings OF the Police Jury "a, clipped
from the official journal of the Paris h
Of ~. Mary had lit it, meeting On
March 10Th. 1905.
| Ia this supplemental petition they
aSSail the ordinance of March 10th.
1906. lrvying Il nine mill tax on the
assessed value Of the property subject
10 parochial lax - null ard void and
| Of ne effect for the reason thai tie
| Police .IurE was unauthorized to make
| such z levy for the year 1906 at that
| late date
| They charge a. illegal and void the
| ordinance Of said date apprOpriatin.
| two and threp-qlaft',r mill, of tn nine
mill tax. or 50 much thereof a. may bt
| necessary for the purpose of paying
| the proposed court house debt I'm
that pretended appropriation for the
null and void purpOS" has been here
tofrrr made on the 9th day Of March.
1906. and that said ordinance is an
attempt 10 lr9alize TIL aforesaid IN
constitutional and Illegal appropria-
ton Of March 9TH, 1906.
They a,>al a. illegal and void tie
ordinance making al estimate of the
receipts and expenditures of the Par
i,h Of st. Mary fDr the year 1906 for
the reason. they say. that the same
should have been made at The com
mencement Of the year and before ANY
taxes We're levied.
They allege further utilities and H. |
LOCALITIES Of said proceedings of |!
March 10Th. and reiteratc and affirm |
the allegation, OF their original petit
ton.
In this supplemental petition they |
pray Il, ia their original petition. and
pra further that the proceedings, of
tie Police Jury " The 9th Of March. |
and the ordinances adopted at that
meeting relating 10 the appropriation
Of money to build 4 new court house
and for the demolition of the old
court house as we'll as the ordinance
OF March 30tn referring to the same he
decreed null and void, and that Act
No. - Of the General Assembly of this
State for the year 1902 be decreed I'M
constitutional for the reasons set
forth in the original petition.
|
Of the plaintiffs. Donelscn Gallery.
ESQ. 1t was presented at chambers,
and ordered filed and served.
The defendant fled written objec-
tons to the filing or allowing of said
petition, assigning as
among others, that the pc I
tition came too late: that it changed {
the character and substance of the
tition prayed only for the issuance
while the supplemental petition prayed
nent of the ordinance: that the ordi- 3
lance complained of was before the I
court on the trial of the RULE NISI.
md should then have been objected to:
hat the plea of no cause of action
Iuu VlIlCi CNSSPtloiio VII liIC Ut |
SISI having been tried and submitted. \
supplied by supplemental petition: +,
matters set up in the supplemental pc I
ition with reference to the ordinance t
If March 9th. 1906 should be stricken
rom the supplemental petition as all Q
grounds of nullity then existing. should
,1y boon of n tho n,,i,ira1 | 1
ition. !
Defendant refers to clerical errors {
n the published minutes OF the pro- Il
eedings of the Police Jury of March 5
9th. and refers the court especially to I
certified copy filed on the trial of
he RULE NISi.
The first thing for the court to n
onsider. therefore. is the right OF the t
he plaintiffs to file this supplemental V
'etition. a
This proposition is not free from I
it1iculties. The defendant cites in !,
Import Of his proposition that the r
petition should not be r
llOwed the 9th An. zOS. 18th An. 6l3 c
0 An. 30. eth Rob. IS. 9th Rob 227 l
nd 18th An. go. 9
The authorities cited, in my opin- ;,
On, do not apply squarely TO the
ase al bar. They have reference to r
asses in which the injunction had al t
eady issued and in most Instances p
ad been tried and dissolved: and a
ne court held that the plaintiff could Il
OF set up as grounds to maintain an J,
njunction already issued or to secure +
ne issuance Of a second injunction t
that existed anterior to the .
ling of the original petition. +
This is and should be the law as to a
already issued or a, to in /
lnctions tried and dissolved. But =
oes this condition apply to the case !,
t bar? ;
Here the plaintiff, asks for and ip- ii