Case Name: The State of Louisiana vs. Michael Laqué et als.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1885-12
Citations: 37 La. Ann. 853
Docket Number: No. 9488
Parties: The State of Louisiana vs. Michael Laqué et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 853–856

Head Matter:
No. 9488.
The State of Louisiana vs. Michael Laqué et als.
It cannot be claimed that an appeal is devolutive, where the appeal asked and allowed is suspensive, in express terms.
An appeal cannot be taken from a judgment before it is rendered, or a bill taken before the ruling is made by the court.
Üaking an appeal instanter from a j udgment quashing an indictment and ordering the discharge of the accused and the cancellation of their bonds, is not an act of acquiescence.
An appellant who prays for an appeal returnable according to law, is not chargeable with any fault, where he suggests neither time nor place, and where the judge fixes both of his own motion.
The filing of a transcript long before the return day is no cause for dismissing the appeal.
There is no reason to quash an indictment because of a defect in one count thereof, whore the other count is perfect.
There is no repugnancy in the two counts of an indictment, one of which charges larceny and the other receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.
In the count for receiving stolen goods, it is not necessary to aver the name of the thief or of the person from whom the goods were received.
APPEAL from the Twenty-sixth District Court, Parish of St. Charles. Besamgon, J.
M. J. Cunningham, Attorney Q-eueral, G. Biché, District Attorney, A. JE. Billings and C. A. Baguié, for the State, Appellant:
All appeals in criminal cases are suspensive, aud no citation i3 requisite. Act ITo. 30,1878. The presence in court of a defendant in a criminal case when a motion for an appeal is made by the State and particularly after the information is quashed, is unnecessary. 31 Ann. 652; 32 Ann. 559.
Where an appeal is moved for, returnable according to law, and the judge fixes the return day other than that fixed by law, the appeal will not be dismissed. B. S. 36; O. P. 898: 6 Ann. 474; 31 Ann. 504; lb. 595; 33 Ann, 1230.
It is unnecessary to file a transcript of appeal in the Supreme Court, until the return day as fixed by the judge’s order granting the appeal. C. P. 587, 597.
Michael Hahn, Morris Maries andF. B. JEarhart for Defendants andAppellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.-
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
Not one of the reasons assigned for the dismissal of this appeal is founded on fact or law.
. I.
The first ground is: that the appeal is devohitive, and the defendants have not been cited to answer it.
The motion of the district attorney was for a suspensive appeal, and the court ordered that a suspensive appeal be granted. R. pp. 26,44,45.
II.
The second ground is: that the appeal was moved for and granted after defendants were discharged and their bonds cancelled and the judgment acquiesced in by the State.
There is nothing in the record to show that the accused were discharged and their bonds cancelled before the appeal was asked by the State, or that the judgment was acquiesced in by the State.
The motion on this ground is not even sworn to, so that the averment rests for proof only on the ipse dixit of each defendant.
The record shows that as soon as the district judge rendered the judgment quashing the indictment and ordering the release of the accused, and cancelling their bonds, the State not only applied for a suspensive appeal, but took a bill of exception.
The State conld not have appealed before the judgment was rendered, or excepted before the ruling had been made.
The protest of the State by appeal and bill repels the charge of acquiescence, even if it could stand without proof.
III.
The third ground is:, that the appeal is not made returnable in ten days, according to law.
The State, through her representative, the district attorney, prayed for a suspensive appeal----to this Court____"returnable according to law," without suggesting or fixing any return day. E. pp. 26-7.
The district judge allowed the appeal returnable to this Court on the first Monday of November, 1885. E. pp. 26-7, 45.
It may be that the judge ought to have made the appeal returnable either at Monroe, Opelousas, or Shreveport, as the judgment was rendered May 13th, and this Court, then sitting in New Orleans, was soon to adjourn there, and that he was wrong in making it returnable here on the first Monday of November following; but the State is not chargeable with the action of the court. The State did all she was expected to do and no fault is attributable to her. This has been frequently held not to be a sufficient ground of dismissal.
IV.
The last ground is: that the transcript of appeal was not filed in this Court within ten days from the granting of the appeal.
The transcript was filed, not after, but long before the return day, namely: June 30,1885, when it might hare been filed here only on the 2d of November following. The transcript was surely in the clerk's office on that day.
The accused have no cause of complaint.
Motion to dismiss overruled.