Case Name: STATE v. FAIRBANKS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1905-06-19
Citations: 115 La. 458
Docket Number: No. 15,693
Parties: STATE v. FAIRBANKS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 115
Pages: 242–245

Head Matter:
(39 South. 443.)
No. 15,693.
STATE v. FAIRBANKS.
(June 19, 1905.
On Rehearing, Nov. 6, 1905.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Criminal Law — Appeal—Time oe Taking.
Appeal was timely taken within “continuous” session of the court.
On the Merits.'
2. Homicide — Assault by “Shooting At.”
The defendant was prosecuted under section 792 of the Revised Statutes, which denounced “shooting at.”
The court heretofore decided that “shooting at” is a complete crime in itself. State v. Brady, 2 South. 556, 39 La. Ann. 688. That decision is affirmed.
3.Statutes — Construction—Power oe Legislature.
The court looks into the propriety of a penal statute to ascertain whether it falls within the power of the Legislature. Amending Act No. 59, p. 93, of 1896, falls within that power and is not void.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Eighth Judicial District Court, Parish of Catahoula; David Newton Thompson, Judge.
O. W. Fairbanks was convicted of crime, and appeals.
Affirmed.
See ante, p. 46, 38 South. 889.
Dagg & Dale, for appellant. Walter Guión, Atty. Gen., and Riley Joseph Wilson, Dist. Atty. (Lewis Guión, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
PER CURIAM.
The Attorney General, setting forth correctly that the appeal was taken on the 3d day of May, 1905, whilst the court was not in session, and that the court had adjourned sine die on the 29th of the month preceding, moves to dismiss the appeal.
The defendant has three days within which to move for an appeal. He was not allowed the time required. He properly applied for the appeal within the three days. The court, under the Constitution, is ordered to hold continuous sessions. The order of appeal could be entered during its session within the time mentioned.
It is for the purpose of the appeal, and in order to lessen the time within which he may appeal, taken during one of the days of the continuous session.
The writer of the opinion infra entertains different views as relates to this motion, and thinks that the motion should always be made before adjournment.
Motion to dismiss is overruled.