Case Name: STATE ex rel. MOORE, Dist. Atty., v. REID, Sheriff
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1911-06-15
Citations: 129 La. 158
Docket Number: No. 18,441
Parties: STATE ex rel. MOORE, Dist. Atty., v. REID, Sheriff.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 157–161

Head Matter:
(55 South. 748.)
No. 18,441.
STATE ex rel. MOORE, Dist. Atty., v. REID, Sheriff.
(June 15, 1911.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Removal of Officers — Constitutional Provisions.
Members of the state board of appraisers, except the Auditor, Railroad Commissioners, district attorneys, clerks of court, sheriffs, coroners, justices of the peace, judges of the city courts, and of other inferior courts of the city of New Orleans and elsewhere, and all other parish, municipal, and ward officers, may be re moved by judgment of the district court of the domicile of such officer (in the parish of Orleans, the civil district court).
2. Removal of Officers — Constitutional Provisions.
The district attorney may, whenever in his opinion sufficient cause exists therefor, institute such suit, and it shall be his duty (except when the suit is to be brought against himself), to institute such suit on the written request and information of 25 resident citizens and taxpayers, in the case of members of the state board of appraisers, Railroad Commissioners, district, parish, or municipal officers, and of 10 resident citizens and taxpayers in the case of ward officers.
3. Removal of Officers — Sheriffs—Constitutional Provisions.
Sheriffs of the courts of the state shall be liable to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, for nonfeasance or malfeasance in office, for incompetency, for corruption, favoritism, extortion, or oppression in office, or for gross misconduct, or habitual drunkenness.
<4. Officers (§ 118*) — Removal—Grounds— Acts of Deputies.
Principals or heads of offices are liable to impeachment for acts of their deputies done while in the discharge of their official duties. State v. TCellam, 4 La. 494.
' [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Officers, Cent. Dig. § 195; Dec. Dig. § 118.*]
5. Sheriffs and Constables (§ 100*) — Removal — Grounds—Acts of Deputies.
Where a sheriff has taken proper measures to prevent his deputy from committing crime, and afterwards for bringing his deputy to justice for having committed crime, he will not he removed from office for the crime of said deputy.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sheriffs and Constables, Cent. Dig. §§ 158-173; Dec. Dig. § 100.*]
6. Sheriffs and Constables (§ 100*) — Removal — Grounds—Acts of Deputies.
A sheriff will not be removed from office if he is in ignorance of the misconduct of his deputy up to the time of the filing of suit for removal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sheriffs and Constables, Cent. Dig. §§ 158-173; Dec.. Dig. § 100.*]
Appeal front Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu; Winston Over-ton, Judge.
Action by the State, on relation of Joseph Moore, District Attorney, against David J. Reid, Sheriff. Judgment for defendant, and relator appeals.
Affirmed.-
Walter Guión, Atty. Gen., R. G. Pleasant, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joseph Moore, Dist. Atty., for appellant. McCoy, Moss & Knox and Robert Stone, for appellee.

Opinion:
SOMMERYILLE, J.
Defendant, sheriff of the parish of Calcasieu, stands impeached on a petition of more than 25 resident citizens and taxpayers of that parish, at the suit of the district attorney, under and by virtue of article 222 of the state Constitution, for gross misconduct and oppression in office, as provided in article 217 of the Constitution.
There was trial by jury, and judgment dismissing the suit. Relator -has appealed, and asks for a reversal of the judgment and for the removal of defendant from office.
The gravamen of the complaint is that a deputy sheriff, for whose official acts defendant is responsible, had been guilty of gross misconduct and oppression in office, which charges are sustained in part by the testimony in the record. Part of the acts set forth in the petition were so vaguely charged that, under the ruling of the trial judge, they were not considered. Some of the acts were committed by said deputy in his private, and not his official capacity, for which his principal is not responsible. Some of these acts were not communicated to defendant until the filing of this suit. For such defendant cannot be held responsible.
One of the acts of the deputy had been expressly forbidden by defendant, and the deputy had declared he would not do anything of the kind. 1-Ie disobeyed orders, violated the law, and is now a fugitive from justice. In the commission of this crime,, the co-conspirators of the said deputy were arrested, tried, and convicted. While the defendant has offered a reward for the capture of the said deputy sheriff, he is still at large.
We are of the opinion that defendant cannot be held liable to removal from office be cause of the gross misconduct and oppression in office of his deputy, under the circumstances disclosed here. Defendant took immediate. steps to have all the parties arrested who had taken part in the crime referred to, and he succeeded in.bringing them to justice, except as to one, his former deputy. He could have done no more. On being informed that said deputy had threatened to interfere with another deputy in the discharge of his duties, defendant told his deputy what he had heard and warned him not to interfere with this other deputy, and he promised not to do so; he denied ever having made such a threat, saying that he had no such intention, and would not do anything of the kind.
Defendant cannot be condemned for believing that his deputy would not violate the law, particularly after he had been specially warned not to, and the latter had said that he would not. Defendant is not morally or legally liable under such circumstances.
There were some accidents or crimes committed and charged in the petition which the testimony entirely failed to connect the deputy of defendant with in any manner.
We are convinced, after a careful reading of the testimony, that the judgment appealed from is correct, and it is therefore affirmed.