Case Name: STATE v. ESCALADE. In re ESCALADE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-01-30
Citations: 150 La. 637
Docket Number: No. 24705
Parties: STATE v. ESCALADE. In re ESCALADE.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., dissents and hands down reasons.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 637–639

Head Matter:
(91 South. 135)
No. 24705.
STATE v. ESCALADE. In re ESCALADE.
(June 30, 1921.
On Rehearing, Jan. 30, 1922.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Criminal law &wkey;j|208(3) — Fines <&wkey;>l I — Statute held to impose fine or, “in lieu thereof,” imprisonment, not imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
The language, “shall be liable to a fine of $25.00 or in lieu thereof to imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty days in the parish prison,” as used in Act No. Ill of 1890, means fine, or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, and not imprisonment in default of payment of a fine.
O’Niell, J., dissenting.
Application by Xavier Escalade for writ of certiorari and habeas corpus.
Application dismissed.
Loys Oharbonnet and Niels F. Hertz, of New Orleans, for relator.
Philip R. Livadais, Dist. Atty., of New Orleans, for the State.

Opinion:
MONROE, G. J.
The defendant (applicant herein) alleges that he was sentenced by the judge of tlie Twenty-Ninth district court, parish of Plaquemine, to imprisonment in the parish jail for 20 days, upon his pleading guilty of violating Act 111 of 1S90, which makes it an offense for any passenger on a railroad train to insist upon going into a coach or compartment, to which, by race, he does not belong, whereas the penalty, authorized by the statute, is a fine of $25, and imprisonment, in default of payment. That allegation is, however, predicated upon a misunderstanding of the language of the statute, which reads (section 2) "shall be liable to a fine of twenty-five dollars or in lieu thereof to imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty days in the parish prison," which leaves it to the discretion of the judge to impose the one sentence or the other, as, in his opinion, the case may require.
The preliminary orders heretofore issued are therefore revoked, and this application is now dismissed at the cost of the applicant.
O'NIELL, J., dissents and hands down reasons.