The Caucasian., 1913-12-02
BLIND TIGER ORDINANCE
Is Declared To Be Nullity as Exc
pounded in case of N. MarOun VS..
City of ShrevepOrt-AssOcjate JUS
tice Land the Organ of the Court.


the City of Shreveport was declared
to be a nullity. This conclusion was
in the case of T. Maroun VS.. City of
Shreveport.
The organ of the court, Associate
Justice A. D. Land, in passing on the
case announced:
''The City Of Shreveport has no
power under its charter or any
other statute to suppress as a public
nuisance amy house, store, room or
any other place where intoxicating
liquors are kept illicitly, or kept for
the purpose Of sale, barter, eX-
change, trade or giving away as a
beverage, or kept in place where
near-beer is displayed for sale, or
sold, and to provide for search war
rants for the purpose of discovering
the presence of intoxicating liquors
in such premises
''The State law penalties the sale
of intoxicating liquors in a prohibi-
ton district but does not penalize
the keeping of such liquors under
the circumstances set forth in the
ordinance in question.
"A municipal ordinance which
treats as public nuisance the mere
possession of intoxicating Liquors,
which the State law does ngt pro-
hibit, and makes such possession
prima facie evidence of guilty in
tention to sell, in violation of the
prohibition law, is utterly null and
void, in the absence of a special
statute delegating such drastic pow
ers to the municipality.
1T is therefore ordered that the
judgment appealed from be an
nulled, avoided and reversed and
that the defendant be discharged
and his bond cancelled"
This, decision, as many citizens
may assume, is not effective until
the,formalities Of the law are COM
piled with and in re-hearing may
be reversed.
There was no argument in this
case. The case was submitted on
November 8 on the brief of the de-
fendant.
The city was not represented.
It was the understanding that the
question involved in this case would
be left to rest with the decision
which would be reached in the case
of Dehan vs.. Fullilove, and the case
Of City VS.. Phil Maroun, which are
to be consolidated for. argument be-
fore the Supreme Court on next
Saturday, Dec. 6, by Judge w. P
Hall for the city and Hon. J. M. Fos-
ter for the defendant.
The Caucasian has been queried:
How can Attorney Foster appear
against the city when he is the city
attorney, salaried at 5000 month?
The answer is plain. Before he
was honored with the attorneyship
of the city he was the counsel for
the defendants and professionally
under the circumstances, he is ex-
pected to appear and argue the side
of the accused by whom he has been
employed.
To explain some confusion which
has arisen over the Marouns, it may
be said that N. Maroun and Phil Ma
roun we're convicted in the Git,
Court of violating the ''blind tiger
ordinance of the city.
The case of N. Maroun was ap-
realed directly from the City Court
of which Judge L. C. Blanchard is
judge.
Joe Maroun has no connection
with this decision of the Supreme
Court. On being tried for violation
of the prohibition law he was con-
victed. He appealed to the Supreme
Court from the decision of the Dis.
trict Court. The judgment of th'
District Court was affirmed. He ha:
filed motion for a re-hearing AMI
for other relief if possible. If tn
legal DEGREES are permitted to stand
Joe Maroun will have to go to thu
Parish Farm and do duty, his tim
being fixed at six months servitud'
besides the fine.
| The Fulliloye blind tiger ordi
nance, as it is generally designated
is a copy of the Ruston ordinance
whose validity has been sustaine'
by the Supreme Court of Louisiana
The only difference between tn
Fullilove ordinance and the Rustol
ordinance is that there is no refer
|ence to near-beer in the Ruston or
dinance, but applies to the sale g
intoxicants.
| The Ruston ordinance was hel
| valid in the case Of City OF Rustic
i VS.. FOntaine, it8 La. So.
Il In an interview with Commission