The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1916-12-23
NEW TRIAL REFUSED.
Judge Workman Reiterates Previous
Ruling in Police Jury Case.

Ruling in Police jury Case.
After an all-day hearing of argu-
ments pro and con, Judge Charles J..
Workman on Tuesday refused to
grant a new trial in the suit of e. ii.
Landry ct ais. VS.. Joseph Gonzales ct
ais, involving the right of Joseph
Gonzales and E. D. Dixon to serve as
members of the police jury of Ascen-
sion parish under appointment OF Gov.
Pleasant, i'm accordance with the
terms of Act No 100 of 1915. In a
lengthy decision handed down Dec. l.,
Judge Workman held that the act IN
question is constitutional, and that
the legislature was within its rights
in passing law to increase the mem
bership of the police jury of Ascen-
sion parish by providing an additional
police juror for each the seventh and
eighth wards. Upon the rendition OF
this judgment motion for new
trial was filed by counsel for plain
tiffs, and it was on this motion that
the cause celebre was reopened.
Arguments in behalf of new trial
were made by Attorneys Edward N:
Pugh, Walter Lemann and Edmund
Maurin, of counsel for plaintiffs, who
urged that Act 100 of 1916 is uncon-
stitutional, in as much as it violates
Article 40 Of the state constitution,
which provides that the legislature
shall not pass local or special law re-
pealing or amending general law
on the same subject. Other conten-
lions regarding the validity of the
act in question, of the same nature as
those advanced in the original suit to
test the constitutionality of the mea-
sure, were pleaded by Messrs. Pugh,
Lemann and Maurin.
Attorney C. c. Weber, who has rep
resented the defendantsAAR the suit
since the inception of Mitigation,
appeared in opposition to the grant
ing of the motion for a new trial, and
urged that the previous judgment of
the court be upheld, citing authorities
and rulings in support of his conten-
ton.
In denying the plea for a new
trial, Judge Workman held, in sub
stance, that the legislature has the
authority to create as many new po-
lice jurors as it sees fit, and that, as a
consequence, Act 100 of 1916 is
constitutional and entirely in accord
with previous legislation and constl-
tutional regulations upon the subject.
From this ruling suspenslve ap-
peal to the supreme court was taken
by counsel for plaintiffs, returnable
on or before Jan. 10, 1917, upon bond
being furnished in the sum of $500.
Attorney Weber, in behalf of defend
ants, objected to the order Of court
granting the appeal, for the same rea-
sons set forth in his motions filed
Nov. 16 last, questioning the jurisdic-
ton of the court ratione materiae,
and pleading exceptions of no cause
and no right of action on the part of
plaintiffs.
Mr.. Weber had previously filed no.
tice. of his intention to apply to the
supreme court for writs of certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition to obtain
revocation of the order of injunc-
ton issued by the district court in
this suit, upon the grounds set forth
above, and upon the further ground
that his original motion for this pur-
pose, having been fled separately,
should have been passed upon sep
arate1y by the court in its decision of
Dec. /. This action on the part of
Mr.. Weber was preceded by the re
fusal Of Judge Workman to render
separate judgment revoking or dis
solving the injunction, for the reason
that the judgment previously render
ed carries with in the dissolution of
the injunction.