Tensas gazette. [volume] (St. Joseph, La.) 1886-current, 1918-09-06
AN OPEN LETTER
Judge Ben c. Dawkins,
Monroe, La,

prove, that you were reversed by
the Supreme Court in a majority of
the cases appealed from your court
and passed upon by that tribunal
In this letter / shall confine my
self to answering the parts of your
letter which / DEAN the public to
have an interest. As to the state
ments of falsehood and incrimina-
ton, / take these to have issued
either from demoralized or a dis
ordered mind. You have presented
what you must know to be a garb-
led statement of your own record.
This is not matter of veracity, for
the record speaks for itself; and
even you must realize, Judge, that
the record was made by you, and
not by me.
You claim to have been affirmed
in Aren't VS.. Liquidating Commiss-
toner's. Bank Of Monroe, 1873 Is.
1874. The official reports show that
in the District Court you overruled
an exception of no cause of action
and sustained plea of res iudicata
The Supreme Court overruled YOU
you deny that's?
You claim to have been affirmed
in State VS.. Karslake, 1876 La: Sc.
The records show that that case was
never passed upon at all by the
Supreme Court; the appeal having
been voluntarily dismissed.
You say YOU were affirmed in the
case of King VS.. Hardwood Mfg.
Co.. 140 La 753. But the facts are
that that case was never PASSED
upon by the Supreme Court except
10 dismiss the appeal. which the
Court held that you had improperly
granted.
You saw you were affirmed in the
case of State VS.. Daniels, 141 La.
423. The reports show a reversal:
the court. holding that you had
committed error. annulled the SEN
tence and sent the case back to the
District Court.
You saw you were affirmed in the
case of Sims VS.. Village of Mer
Rouge. 141 La 81. The reports
show four consolidated cases, in two
of which were reversed. The cases
were argued and submitted together
and therefore the decision is a re-
versal for you. We shall count it,
uO"SNCIs as yOu nave uOHc, as IOuI
cases--two affirmed and two re-
versed.
Hence the facts are that in the
cases which have been reported and
to whish q lawyer may have access
1.-THE only evidence upon which one
may relyl you have been affirmed
in only sixteen cases.
Now, let US take up the reversals.
as stated bv you Why do you omit
from the list Of reversed cases that
of State VS.. Harwick, which the re-
ports. 1873 La. SAG, show was a re-
versal of a judgment rendered by
you?
Why do you omit the case of
State VS.. Glover, 140 La. 727, which
the published reports show to have
resulted in reversal Of the con-
viction before you?
Why do you attempt to camof1age
the case of Aren't VS.. Bank Of Mon
roe. 1877 La. sc, in which the Su-
preme Court again reversed your
decision, and the decision in Lanan
VS.. johnson, 40 La. 863, in which
the Supreme Court held that you
had committed error?
And what excuse can YOU offer
for entirely emitting the case Of the
National City Bank Of Chicago VS..
Barringer ct al, 76 Southern 1874.
which the Supreme Court reversed?
And why do you omit the case
of National CITY Bank VS.. Barring
er, 139 La, $50, in which you
granted an appeal to tthe wrong
court?
The published reports of the Su-
preme Court, therefore, including
which you refer as not vet report
the case of Whyte VS.. Grant, to
ed, but which has been reported in
LAP Louisiana reports 1922, show
that your judgment have been held
erroneous, in whole or in part, in
twenty cases: and that you have
been affirmed in criminal and civil
cases in only sixteen.
You refer in your letter to seve-
raj other cases not yet reported, in
which you state you have been af-
firmed: Elamdorf VS.. Clark, No. 22-
4O8; Bernstein VS.. Monroe, No. g.
ia; Davenport VS.. Dawkins. No.
and State VS.. Frank, No. 2O137.
The case of Bernstein VS.. Monroe
and State VS.. Frank, as YOU very
well know. involved only the denial
of writs, which in no sense bear
upon the correctness or incorrect
ness of your decision.
/ have telephoned the Clerk of
the Supreme Court, and find. from
him that your judgments were af-
frmed in the Elmdorf ard Daven-
port cases.
These not having been reported,
| have, of course, had no previous
knowledge of them: but, adding
them to the list of the cases affirmed
YOU still have been affirmed in less
than one-half of the cases appealed
from your court to the Supreme
Court and passed upon by that tri-
bunal.
l am simply stating the record,
which shows that you have been
held to have committed error in
more than onc-haf of the cases
going from your court to and pass
ed upon bv the tribunal to a post
ion on which you aspire.
l am not going at the presen
time at length into the quality of
YOUR decisions. Their chacter is
best shown bv the fact that in no |
,ase decided by you where you de- |
Jared a statute unconstitutional
was your decision affirmed. Will |
you undertake to deny this?
Nor shall / comment at length !
Ipon the Mccormick case, LAP La.
so, in which you make your men,
al qualities matter of recording
n holding, as is shown by the off
'ial reports, that one who habitual-
Y associated with prostitutes, habit
tally loiters in and around houses Of