Case Name: STATE ex rel. CAILLOUET v. MARMOUGET, Recorder, et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1903-10-15
Citations: 111 La. 225
Docket Number: No. 14,978
Parties: STATE ex rel. CAILLOUET v. MARMOUGET, Recorder, et al.
Judges: MONROE, J, concurs in the decree.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 225–235

Head Matter:
(35 South. 529.)
No. 14,978.
STATE ex rel. CAILLOUET v. MARMOUGET, Recorder, et al.
(Oct. 15, 1903.)
JUVENILE VAGRANTS — COMMITMENT — SUPREME COURT—SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION —POLICE REGULATION — VIOLATION — ORDINANCES—ENEORCEMENT.
1. Recorders in the city of New Orleans have authority to enforce the city ordinance relating to juvenile vagrants by committing girl vagrants to the House of Good Shepherd until they shall have reached the age of eighteen (IS) years.
On Rehearing.
2. At the instance of relatrix’s mother, the relatrix, a girl of 17 years of age, was arrested, and taken before the recorder, under Ordinance 2272, relative to juvenile vagrants. The recorder ordered her to be committed to the House of Good Shepherd until she was 18 years of age. From this order she appealed to the criminal district court, and that court affirmed the order.. She then applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and prohibition, and asked to be discharged on the ground that the recorder exceeded his authority in enforcing or trying to enforce an ordinance the penalty of which was different from that authorized by law, as in her case it amounted to her incarceration for six months in the House of Good Shepherd, which penalty the recorder had no right to impose.
The case is one where a widowed mother, having sought and obtained, in aid of the enforcement by herself of her parental duty towards and her authority over her minor child, the assistance of the judiciary, the minor is invoking, after judgment, the assistance of the court to resist her in her performance of that duty and the exercise of that authority, not because the mother is acting beyond her right and her authority in the premises, but on the ground that she had had recourse to officers having no authority to aid her.
3. The case does not call for the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Ordinance No. 227-2 is not a criminal ordinance. It is a mere administrative police regulation designed as a preventive against wrongdoing, and not as a punishment for wrongdoing. It is to guard and protect children against themselves and evil-minded per sons surrounding them. Detention under it is not imprisonment. The proceedings under the ordinance were not criminal proceedings. The recorder’s order was not technically a “judgment.” It was a mere order of commitment, subject at any time to be set aside under proper conditions.
4. Act No. 143, p. 256, of 1898, in making it lawful for the city to enforce obedience to and to punish the violation of all ordinances through fine or imprisonment, or both, and enforce the same through the recorders of the city, did not make it obligatory upon the city to enforce each and every ordinance in that way, or narrow the extent or scope of the powers of the council in legislating upon subject-matters over which it had legal control; nor did it withdraw from the recorders their authority and their duty to enforce all valid ordinances of the city in manner, form, and extent as the ordinances themselves directed.
5. Even if the order of commitment was subject to criticism as fixing the period of detention for a certain designated time, the commitment would not be null and void in its entirety. The commitment would hold good, the period of detention being left open to be met by future contingencies.
Monroe, X, dissenting.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Application by the state, on the relation of Theresa Caillouet, for writs of certiorari and prohibition against A. P. Marmouget, recorder of the Second Recorder’s Court, and others.
Writs denied.
Paul Louis Eourchy, for relatrix. Respondent Judge, pro se. M. D. Dimitry, Asst. Oity Atty., for respondent recorder.

Opinion:
BLANOHARD, J.
The preliminary order granted on this application was that the defendant Recorder and defendant Judge send up the record of the case of the City of New Orleans vs. Theresa Caillouet, to the end that the validity of the proceedings taken therein by the Recorder, affirmed by the Judge of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, be enquired into, and to the further end of determining whether or not the writ of prohibition applied for should be granted.
The papers were sent up. Examination of the same and consideration of the arguments presented, have led to the conclusion that the proceedings, against which objection is raised, are regular and valid, and that no ground exists for the issuance of the writ of prohibition applied for.
Theresa Caillouet, a girl seventeen (17) years of age, was proceeded against, at the instance of her mother, for vagrancy under City Ordinance No. 2272, Council Series of the City of New Orleans.
This Ordinance prescribes, among other things, that all children engaged in any occupation dangerous to their morals, or of a tendency to produce habits of idleness and vice, shall be deemed juvenile vagrants and shall be brought before the Mayor, or other competent court and shall be disposed of-according to the laws establishing houses of juvenile delinquents and vagrants; that all boys shall be committed to the Boys' Plouse of Refuge, and girls to the House of Good Shepherd.
The girl. Theresa, was found by the Recorder to be engaged in an occupation, or about to engage in an occupation, dangerous to her morals, and this, too, against the wishes of her mother, who, unable to control her, invoked the interposition of the Recorder.
That official committed her to the House of Good Shepherd.
An appeal was prosecuted to the Criminal District Court, which tribunal affirmed the judgment of the Recorder;
Whereupon the application aforesaid for writs of certiorari and prohibition was made here.
The contention of the relatrix is that, under the law, the jurisdiction and authority of Recorders of the City of New Orleans to punish for violation of City Ordinances is limited to a fine not exceeding Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00), or imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days, or both; and that in committing her to the House of Good Shepherd until she reaches the age of eighteen (18) years—a period longer than thirty (30) days he exceeds his authority.
Her further contention is that City Ordinance No. 2272, O. S., is illegal, null and void in that it provides a penalty different from that authorized by law.
Neither contention is sound.
The law cited by counsel for relatrix, limiting the jurisdiction of the Recorders to a fine of Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00), or imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days, applies to cases of infraction of the City Ordinances. That is to say, where an offense has been committed through violation of some City Ordinance.
It does not apply to cases arising under the Ordinance relating to juvenile vagrants, for the reason that the party proceeded against under such ordinance is not charged with the commission of any offense and is not punished by any sentence of imprisonment in the ordinary sense of that term.
When a young girl, as here, is arrested as a vagrant and is proven to be a vagrant and is ordered confined to the House of Good. Shepherd, she is not, in law, imprisoned. She has committed no crime to be punished for by ¡imprisonment. She is merely put in a house of correction to save her from herself, to preserve her morals, and she is detained there until she reaches the age of eighteen (18) years, at which time it is supposed she will have more discretion and prudence and be better able to care for herself and avoid the pitfalls that beset the pathway of young women.
The Ordinance, therefore, which authorizes, this detention in the House of Good Shepherd is not one that falls within the jurisdictional limit of authority as to fine and imprisonment prescribed for Recorders in Act No. 143, p. 250, of 189S, and section 12 of Act No. 131, p. 201, of 1877.
In the law giving Recorders full power and authority to enforce all Ordinances of the City of New Orleans, is found warrant for- the action, taken in the case under consideration.
The writs applied for are denied at the cost of the applicant.
MONROE, J, concurs in the decree.