St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1916-09-02
THE SUBSIDIZED PRESS-AF-
FIRMANCEs, REVERsALS
AND OTHER THINGS

a correct resume Of his record, His
Honor, the Judge, speaks of tae
CLARION and ALL the other papers
of this parish as the SUBSIDIZED
press of st. Landry. VIZ have re-
ferred to this matter opce before,
but it is now appropriate that we
do SO again.
Judge Pavy called the press Of
ST. Landry SUBSIDIZED because
the four papers Of this parish
charged that he had been erroneous
in more than fifty per cent. of
civil cases appealed TO the Supreme
Court from his court-according to
the Louisiana Reports, up to and in
Guiding the i38th Louisiana Annual.
This record shows that Judge Pavy
was either reversed, remanded or
amended in a fraction over FIFTY
FIVE per cent. of civil cases ap-
peaied from his court to the Su-
preme Court, and a fraction over
FORTY-THREE per cent. of Grim
inal cases appealed from his court
to the Supreme Court. There are a
few cases, as Mr.. Sandoz says in
his statement, that have been de-
cided by the Supreme Court since
March 10th, of this year. They
have not yet been published in the
Louisiana Reports, and desiring t.
cite tae public to the annual and
page wherein these cases were re-
ported, Mr.. Sandoz concluded his
list with the f38th Louisiana An
nual, the last published. The cases
decided and not included n the
statement should not very mate
rally effect the percentage of af-
firmances, r~eversals, CT amend
ments.
In discussing the circular gotten
out by Judge Pavy n defen Ing MS
official .record'-if you want 70
call ii such-we ealled to the atten-
ton Of our readers ce..eain intnr-
rect entries made by the Judge.
To substantiate what we thea
said. we will now snow our
leaders what he Supreme Court NJ
Louisiana had to say regarding cne
Of the cases recored by JndSe iayy
as an affirmed case. Tlsc case OF
Crowen g. Spencer Lumber Tom
pam vs.. Samuel Duplissey is reg
istered by the Judge as Eeins al
firmed. In our last issue We stated
taat this case was not affirmed. but
that it was amended The follos-
ing is the language of Justice Pro- !
yosty. on page s43. iaOth Louisiana
Reports: f
sIt is well settled that attorneys
fees for dissolying a writ Of Sc 7.
a~uestration can be allowed only Z
trial on the writ has been
separate from that on the merits;
md this has not been done IN the +
present case. The trial court y
FRED. therefore, in allowing dam
.ges, and in that respect the Judg- !
nent appealed from must De y
mended." |
This is not what the CLARloN !
avs, but what is said by the ST.
IRENE. COURT OF LOUISIANA.
Judge pavy a consistently
ell the people Of this Judicial DIS N
riot that the Ease above referred
, is an affirmed case, we cannot T
Understand. The Judge has either
,ade a mistake Of the heart OF the 9
lind. We hope that it is a mis- 4
Ike of the mind.
We think that Judge Pavy owes 1t A
|, the people of the Sixteenth Ju- Z.
icial District to be frank with
insofar as his official record g
concerned; we believe that he
lould tell them that the record +
lblished by him is not a correct
le. 1t is hard to believe that a
dye would wilfully deceive his ia
nstituents, particularly 50, when
at record is written in the Louis
IA Reports of our Supreme Court.
We do not believe that the Judge "
d any ground on which to call -
press of st. Landry sUBsT- tas
FED. As for the CLARION, we :.
~ criticized his official record. cor
1 only after he had stated that he soe
q seeking P~p-plpcfiOn IN that rae die