Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Cecil MALONE. In re Cecil Malone, applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1933-02-27
Citations: 176 La. 846
Docket Number: No. 32221
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Cecil MALONE. In re Cecil Malone, applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.
Judges: ST. PAUL, J., absent because of illness.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 176
Pages: 845–847

Head Matter:
147 So. 11
STATE of Louisiana v. Cecil MALONE. In re Cecil Malone, applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.
No. 32221.
Feb. 27, 1933.
Dimick & Hamilton and George G. Dimick, all of Shreveport, for relators.
Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James U. Galloway, Dist. Atty., and Nash Johnson, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Shreveport (James O’Niell, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., of counsel!, for the State.

Opinion:
O'NIELL, Chief Justice.
The relator was prosecuted under a bill of information charging that he had violated the Hood Act, being Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), as amended by Act No. 57 of 1924. He moved to quash the bill of information, on the ground that the Hood Act was repealed by Act No. 238 of 1932. The district attorney pleaded that the act. of 1932 was unconstitutional. The district judge overruled the motion to quash, holding that Act No. 238 of 1932 was unconstitutional. The case is before us on a writ of certiorari and alternative writs of prohibition and mandamus, to stop the prosecution of the relator.
We decided to-day in State v. Herbert Watkins, 176 La. 837, 147 So. 8, that Act No. 238 of 1932 was unconstitutional.
For the reasons given in that case the writs issued in this case are recalled, the relief prayed-for by the relator is denied, and this proceeding in the Supreme Court is dismissed.
ST. PAUL, J., absent because of illness.