The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1917-12-22
ANOTHER CHAPTER CLOSED.
Supreme Court Announces New Find
ings in Police Jury Suit.

Supreme court Announces New + Ind
ings in Police Jury Suit.
Following is the full text of the de
cision handed down by the supreme
court of Louisiana on the 7th inst.
through Justice Chas. A. O'Niell, il
the matter of the suit of C. H
Landry ct ais. VS.. Joseph Gonzales e
ais, on rehearing:
although the appellees did mo-
it was observed, pending the appel
lants' application for rehearing, thai
it was very doubtful whether this
court had jurisdiction. A rehearine
was granted, therefore, on our owr
| motion, to determine the question OF
appellate jurisdiction.
''The amount of the salary OF
emoluments of the office of the police
jurors, whose right to the office is con-
tested, does not determine the ques-
tiQn of appellate jurisdiction in this
case. In fact, there is no allegation
nor proof of salary or emoluments.
''The only allegation in the petition
purporting to fix or determine the
appellate jurisdiction of the contro-
versy is that the questions involved
in this litigation affect the validity of
all acts of the corporate body, the po-
lice jury of the parish of Ascension,
and the value of the issues involved
is over two thousand dollars
"Whether the money value involv-
ed exceeds two thousand dollars is
determined, not from the mere allega-
ton that it does, but from the nature
of the case, as disclosed by the plead
ings and the proof. The only ques-
ton submitted for decision in this
case is whether the statute under
which the defendants were appointed
police jurors (Act No. 100 of 1916)
is constitutional or unconstitutional.
Although this court has jurisdiction of
any case in which law has been de-
clared unconstitutional, regardless of
the value of the matter in dispute, we
have not jurisdiction of case in
which law has been declared con-
stitutional, unless the value in dis
pute, or the fund to be distributed,
exceeds two thousand dollars. The
allegation that the matter in dis
pute, in this case, exceeds two thou
sand dollars is not borne out by the
evidence.
sIt was decided in State ex rel.
Broussard, District Attorney, ". Dali
las ct al, JIG La489, 40 South. SAT, a
suit between contestants for a public
office without salary or pecuniary per-
uuisite, that the importance of the
Office or the amount of public funds
to be administered could not be con-
sidered in determining the question
of appellate jurisdiction. That de-
cision, in effect, overruled the doc
trine of the case relied upon by the
appellants in this case, State ex rel.
Denis v. Shakespeare, 43 La. Ann. 81.
The ruling in Broussard's case was
affirmed in, Heitcamp ct al. V. Lam
caster, District Attorney, 118 La. "a,
az South. 583. And the question of
appellate jurisdiction in a case very
similar to this was again considered
and disposed of adversely to the ap-
pellants' contention in State ex rel.
Rogers V. Parsons, Districs Attorney,
100 La. 263, As South. 125. A review
of the jurisprudence, in that case, dis
closed that there were decisions to the
effect that the Importance of public
Office in contest, or the amount of
public funds to be administered by
the official, might confer jurisdiction
of the appeal upon this court. Hence
it was found necessary either to af-
firm or reject the doctrine of those
decisions; and the doctrine was then
expressly overruled. The ruling IN
CITY of Gretna V. Bailey, Secretary of
State, 14O La. 1868, 72 South. 996,
cited by the learned counsel for the
appellants, is not at all appropriate to
this case.
'tOur conclusion is that this court
is without jurisdiction in the premises.
The only remaining question is
whether the appeal should be dismiss
ed or transferred to the court OF ap-
peal Act No. 10 of 1912, p. 25, gives
US the right-but does not compel US
to transfer a case to the court OF
appeal if we conclude that that court
has jurisdiction. See Lafayette Real
ty Co. V. Poer, 1876 La. 472, 67 South.
335. The decision in Bloomfield v.
Thompson, 134 La. 923, ga South.
853, cited by the learned counsel for
appellants, has no application to the
question under consideration, except
in so far as it maintains: (D that the
granting of a rehearing, although
limited to the question of jurisdiction,
pending the appellants application
for rehearing, which is yet pending,
prevented the judgment rendered
,erein by this court from becoming
final; and (2) that, having no jurisdic-
ton of this controversy, our only
function in the premises is to an
nounce that fact and dismiss the ap-
peal. Without expressing an opinion,
therefore, on the question whether
the court of appeal might have enter
tanned jurisdiction of this case if the
appeal had been taken to that court,
we have concluded to dismiss the ap-
peal.
"The judgment heretofore render
ed by this court is annul1ed and set
aside, and the appeal is dismissed at
appellants cost.
'Leche, j., takes no part.
Syllabus.
'tWhen the record in a suit lnvoEI-
ing only the question of constitution
ality of statute, under authority OF
which one of the parties to the suit
was appointed to public office, dis
closes that there is no salary nor
emolument attached to the office in
,op,+o,+ o,J +ko DISTRICT coJrv+ has de-