Case Name: The State of Louisiana vs. Christoval Joseph
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1888-01
Citations: 40 La. Ann. 5
Docket Number: No. 10,084
Parties: The State of Louisiana vs. Christoval Joseph.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 5–8

Head Matter:
No. 10,084.
The State of Louisiana vs. Christoval Joseph.
An appeal in a criminal case will not be dismissed where the transcript is filed within three days after the retarn day.
To admit proof of a cause or causes suspending prescription pleaded in bar of the prosecution, such cause or causes must be averred in the indictment.
Where a party is prosecuted under an indictment for murder and convicted of manslaughter and the judgment is arrested because on the face of the indictment a prosecution for manslaughter is barred by prescription, the case cannot be remanded to enable the prosecuting officer to amend the indictment by averring facts showing a suspension of prescription.
And where it appears that the accused is protected by prescription from prosecution under a new indictment for manslaughter, the prosecution must terminate and the accused be discharged.
When a party has been indicted for murder and convicted of manslaughter, he stands acquitted of murder and can never he tried again for that offense.
A PPEAL from the Thirteenth District Court, Parish of St. Landry, i\ Bstilette} J.
M. J. Gunningham, Attorney General, and John M. Ogden, District Attorney, for the State, Appellant.
1. An appeal in a criminal case filed within three judicial days after the expiration of the ten days allowed by law, will not be dismissed. State vs. Francis, 38 Ann. 464.
2. When a conviction of manslaughter is had upon an indictment for murder and judgment ia arrested on the ground that on the face of the indictment the offense is prescribed, the case should be remanded without prejudice to the rights of the State to a legal prosecution, if it ia shown that an erroneous allegation had been made in the indictment which affected the question of prescription. 36 Aun. 978.
E. P. Veazie and E. E. Eerrodm, for Defendant and Appellee.

Opinion:
Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
This appeal is taken by the State from a judgment sustaining a motion in arrest of judgment in a prosecution of the defendant for murder, resulting in his conviction of manslaughter.
There is a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the transcript of appeal was not filed in ten days after the order of appeal was granted.
The appeal was granted on the 17th of November, 1887. The transcript was filed on the 30th, same month. The ten days expired on the 27th of November and the filing of the transcript was within three days thereafter, which was in time. State vs. Corcoran, 38 Ann. 950. State vs. Butler, 38 Ann. 392. State vs. Hampton, 33 Ann. 1252.
The motion to dismiss is therefore refused.