Case Name: Board of Councilmen of Baton Rouge vs. C. Crémonini
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1884-03
Citations: 36 La. Ann. 247
Docket Number: No. 9128
Parties: Board of Councilmen of Baton Rouge vs. C. Crémonini
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 247–250

Head Matter:
No. 9128.
Board of Councilmen of Baton Rouge vs. C. Crémonini
louder tho ordinance of the city of "Baton Bouge, authorizing the prosecution and punishment of the owners of houses, after conviction of their tenants for keeping disorderly houses therein, and due notification thereof to such owners or their agents, no prosecution can be maintained against such owners, before conviction of their tenants and previous to notice of the same to them.
The council of a municipal corporation can provide modes of punishment of offenders against its police ordinances, "by general ordinances affecting all persons alike, hut it is powerless to single out any individual and denounce his trade, occupation or conduct.
Proceedings against offenders against municipal ordinances must he instituted before a competent tribunal — contradictorily with the accused — and not ewpcvrte by resolutions of the council.
An appeal from a mayor’s court will not be dismissed for irregularities and deficiencies in the transcript, if the latter contains the ordinance on which the judgment complained was predicated. Such defects cannot be attributed to the fault of the appellant.
APPEAL from the Mayor’s Court of Baton Rouge. Booth, J.
G. 0. Bird, City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Knox & haycock for Defendant and Appellant.

Opinion:
Motioh to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Poché, J.
Defendant has appealed from a sentence of the mayor condemning him to pay a fine of $25, or in default, to an imprisonment of fifteen days.
Appellees urge tlieir motion to dismiss on the ground that the transcript does not contain the ordinance under which the defendant was sentenced. Proceedings intended to secure a revision of this judgment are now before ns for the third time.
In March of last year, we dismissed the suspensive appeal taken therefrom by the defendant, on the ground that the transcript did not contain the city ordinance or resolution of the council on which the judgment apparently rested. 35 A. 367.
Subsequently, we issued a mandamus compelling the mayor to grant to the defendant a devolutive appeal from the judgment complained of.
The present appeal has been returned in obedience to our writ, and the hoard of councihnen of which the mayor himself is a component part, complains of the insufficiency of the transcript. With what grace can the mayor, whose duty it was both under the law and under our writ to return a complete transcript, pretend to attribute the fault to appellant?
In point of. fact the transcript does contain the city ordinances, the resolution of the council and the petition of citizens, on which the mayor founded his proceedings, and rested his judgment against the defendant. The pith of appellee's complaint is that those documents had not been introduced in evidence or tiled in the trial before the mayor's court. If it be so, the whole proceeding- was irregular and oppressive. But, be that as it may, the documents in question were called for in our writ of mandamus, and are so certified by the mayor. As we remarked in the opinion dismissing the suspensive appeal, we cannot require as full and complete transcripts from mayor's courts, as we exact, according to law, from courts of record; as this transcript furnishes the ordinance and other- documents which form the basis of the prosecution instituted against the defendant, and as the laches of the mayor in the confection of the transcript cannot be possibly attributed to the appellant, it becomes our duty to review the proceedings, which were predicated on the documents which are now before us. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied. Borde vs. Erskine, 33 A. 873.