The weekly messenger. [volume] (St. Martinsville [i.e. St. Martinville] La.) 1886-1948, 1910-06-25
SATURDAY. JUNE IS, 1910
The Messenger Wins.


Parish for the awarding of the
printing contract, to G. o. Brous-
sard, which WAS decided in favor
of the Police Jury by the District
Court and Court of Apperls, was
taken to the Supreme Court on a
writ of CertiorarI or writ of Re
view, and the Supreme Court re-
versed the decisions of the Dis
trict Court and Court of Appeals.
Chief Justice Breaux was the
organ of the Court.
THE JUDGEMENTS:
ALBERT BIENvENU
vs.
POLICE JURY OF ST. MARTIN PARISH
ct al.
IN RE ALBERT BIENVENU APPLYING
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT
OF REVIEW TO THE COURT OF AP
PEAL, PARISH OF ST. MARTIN.
The Police Jury OF the Parish Of ST..
Martin gave due notice that it would
receive bids Oh the nineteenth day Of
July, 1909. for all its official publications
and for job work. such as printing its
letter heads, envelopes. warrants in BOOK
form. licenses and reports, requisitiOn
for material. for sub pOena Of witnesses.
and for jurors, bench warrants. jurors
and witnesses vouchers in book form.
The bid to be one bid, the Police Jury
reserving the right to reject any and all
bids.
The relatOr, editor of the Messenger"
filed sealed bid proposing to publish
the proceedings and other publications
Of the Police Jury and supply the job
printing for one year for forty-eight
dollars.
The respondent. editor of the BAN
ner," filed his bid proposing to publish
the regular monthly proceedings. Ordi-
nary notices free of charge. and to do
all the JOB work at current rates.
At the appointed time to open the bids,
the Police Jury met.
After the Oids had been opened. two OF
the police jurors voted in favor of &C
cepting the Messengers" bid.
Three of the members voted In favor
OF the Banners" and the latter's bid
it follows, accepted by majority Of one
vote.
The editor Of the Messenger" brought
suit claiming that he was the lowest
bidder as he had proposed to publish all
that was required to be published under
the notice aud in accordance with the
contract offered and to do all the work
stated in the notice for the sum of for
tyeight dollars. while his opponent pro
posed to publish the regular monthly
proceedings, ordinances. notices. etc.
free of charge and will do all job work
at current rates"
Exec ptiOn Of Misjoinder.
The defendant excepted on the ground
of misjoinder; the exception was over
ruled.
There was no misjoinder. The con
tract could be attacked contradictory
with the Police Jury and the bidder. 1t
was common act of the two.
Exception of no Cause of Action -
Secondly defendant pleaded the excep.
tiOn of no cause of action.
Before taking up the discussion, we
take up for decision the exceptions filed
which are directed against plaintiffs
right to institute this suit.
The relator AYERS that. in addition t.
being bidder for the work, he is citi
Zen and tax payer.
Jurisprudence has settled the question
adversely to the position of respondent
The party to a bid can attack it in the
Court and the tax payers may sue to sci
aside an illegal contract.
The next contention Of respondent is
that Police Juries have the right 10 re-
ject any and all bids.
That is true. The contract, none the
less, offered to the lowest bidder, must
conform with the requirement Of the
statute.
1t must be left to competition.
There is no question Of rejection of
tie bid.