Case Name: STATE v. AUTHEMENT
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1916-01-24
Citations: 139 La. 1070
Docket Number: No. 21737
Parties: STATE v. AUTHEMENT.
Judges: See concurring opinion of O’NIELL, J., 72 South. 741.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 1070–1078

Head Matter:
(72 South. 739)
No. 21737.
STATE v. AUTHEMENT.
(Jan. 24, 1916.
On Rehearing, June 30, 1916. Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1916.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Criminal Law &wkey;>1020 — Appeal — Jurisdiction-.
This court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from a conviction of a misdemeanor where a sentence of fine or imprisonment is imposed, giving the defendant the alternative, and where either the fine does not exceed $300 or the imprisonment does not exceed six months.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2578-2580; Dec. Dig. <&wkey; 1020.]
2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1017 — Appeal — Moot Case.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana has no authority for rendering an advisory opinion in a case in which its judgment or decree would be null for want of jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2572-2576, 2589; Dec. Dig. &wkey;1017.]
(Additional Syllabus by Bditorial Staff.}
3. Cbiminal Law <&wkey;1020 — Appeal—Jurisdiction-Fine '• Actually Imposed.”
Where the sentence is for fine of $301 and costs, or an alternative of 90 days imprisonment, the fine is not “actually imposed” within the meaning of Const, art. 85, giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction on appeal when a fine exceeding $300 is actually imposed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. .Dig. §§ 2578-2580; Dee. Dig. &wkey; 1020.]
On Rehearing.
4. Fish <&wkey;15 — Offenses—Essentials.
Under Act No. 189 of 1910, authorizing the leasing of oyster lands of the state, and declaring that it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or willingly take oysters bedded or planted by a lessee under this act, or any oysters deposited by such lessee, proof, in a prosecution for violation, that oysters taken from a leased oyster bed' were bedded or planted by the lessee, is necessary to sustain conviction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Fish, Cent. Dig. §§ 27-30; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>15.]
5. Larceny <&wkey;3(3) — Defenses — Privilege or Right.
One taking property under a bona fide claim of right, and not with any intent of theft, is not guilty of larceny.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. § 5; Dec. Dig. &wkey;j3(3).]
6. Fish &wkey;>7(2) — Protection — Leasing of Oyster1 Beds — Jurisdiction.
Under Act No. 189 of 1910, declaring that it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or willfully take oysters bedded or planted by a' lessee, or any oysters deposited under this act, which act authorizes the leasing of oyster lands, and which allows the state in demising oyster lands to demise natural oyster reefs not exceeding 150 acres to each lessee, which does not include more than 20 per cent, of the lands demised, the state may in its power of conservation demise natural reefs to a lessee, such demise not defeating the inherent property rights of the inhabitants of the state in wild game and fish; for no fee-simple title is acquired in the lands demised.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Fish, Cent. Dig. § 10; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;7(2).]
Appeal from Twentieth Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne; W. E. Howell, Judge.
Gustave Authement was convicted of a misdemeanor, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Harris Gagne, of Houma, and Beattie & Beattie, of Thibodaux, for appellant. R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., H. M. Bourg, Dist. Atty., of Houma (G. A. Gondran and J. B. Dawkins, both of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.' On rehearing, A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and Harry Gamble, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
O'NIELL, J.
The defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor, and sentenced to pay a fine of $301 and costs, or be imprisoned 90 days in the parish jail, and he has appealed from the conviction and sentence.
Under the doctrine announced in State v. Hamilton, 128 La. 91, 54 South. 482, and affirmed in State v. Mitchell, 137 La. 1098, 69 South. 851, this court has no jurisdiction of the present appeal. The offense of which the appellant was convicted is not punishable by death or imprisonment at hard labor.
Article 85 of the Constitution of this state provides that the appellate jurisdiction of this court extends to criminal cases on questions of law alone whenever the punishment of death or imprisonment at hard labor may be inflicted or a fine exceeding $300 or imprisonment exceeding six months is actually imposed.
Construing the foregoing constitutional provisions in each of the two cases referred to above, where the sentence imposed for the commission of a misdemeanor was that the defendant pay a fine of $300 and costs and be imprisoned six months in the parish jail, or, in default of his paying the fine and costs, that he serve six months additional imprisonment in the parish jail, it was held by a majority of the members of this court that the imprisonment in excess of the term of six months was only an alternative sentence, not "actually imposed." On the same principle, a majority of the members of the court now hold that the fine of $301 in this case was not actually imposed, because the de fendant was given the alternative sentence of imprisonment for only 90 days.
This case is an important one, involving questions of constitutionality of our oyster conservation laws. But we have no authority for rendering an advisory opinion in a case in which our judgment or decree would be null for want of jurisdiction.
The writer of this opinion adheres to the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in State v. Mitchell, published in 137 La. 1098, 69 South. 852, but is alone in that opinion.
For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed.