Case Name: THE STATE vs. KELLAM
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1832-10
Citations: 4 La. 494
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE vs. KELLAM.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 494–496

Head Matter:
THE STATE vs. KELLAM.
The act of February 17th, 1821, prescribing the manner in which clerks of courts may be removed from office, only permits prosecutions to be earned on by private individuals, for malfeasance or misfeasance in the discharge of the duties of their offices.
Clases may occur where, although there may be no breach of official duty, the court on information given, will direct a prosecution by the district attorney. But they mustbe strong cases; such as render it unsafe to the public that the clerk be allowed to discharge the duties of his office any longer.
At the October term, 1832, of the Supreme Court, sitting at Alexandria, Joseph Friend, a citizen of the parish of Ouachita, presented his petition to the judges at chambers. preferring charges and accusations against John H. Kellum, Esq., clerk of the district court tor said parish. .
The act of February 17, 1821, prescribingthe manner in which clerks of courts may be removed iy°^rmhspro^«^"0-0° by private indivifeasance*"m or misfeasance in the discharge of the duties of their offices.
He represents that J. H. Kellam on the first of April, 1832, “did aid and abet one Jonathan Morgan in the killing of Charles F. Morehouse; that notwithstanding the said homicide, &c., such is the deplorable state of public opinion, and want of energy and decision of the proper authorities, that said J. Morgan has only been indicted for manslaughter, and the said Kellam (with others equally guilty), is suffered to pass with perfect impunity.”
“It is the opinion of your petitioner that said J. H. Kellam, clerk as aforesaid, should be brought to account somewhere, &c., and he begs leave to submit this petition, with the accompanying depositions, and prays that such proceedings ■ be had thereon as may be just and proper.”
The petitioner annexed a detailed statement in a subjoined affidavit, of the rencontre between Charles F. Morehouse and Jonathan Morgan, which resulted in the death of the former. In this he swears Kellam was in company with Mr. Morgan at the period of the unfortunate occurrence above stated aiding and abetting it.
There was also annexed a copy of some depositions taken before the parish judge, on an accusation in this case against Col. Kellam and others, on account of the affair between Morehouse and Morgan, which resulted in their entire acquittal, &c.
The case was proceeded in by the court at chambers, under the act of February 17th, 1821, “providing for the manner in which clerks may be removed from office.”
The following opinion was then read in open court:

Opinion:
Porter, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The act of February 17, 1821, which prescribes the manner clerks may be removed from office, only permits prosecutions to be carried on by private individuals for malfeasance or misfeasance in the discharge of the duties of the office. The reason for this restriction is obvious. The facts charged in the petition laid before us, relates to matters distinct from and unconnected with official duty. The party complaining in this case is not, therefore, authorized to institute or conduct a prosecution. 1 Moreau's Digest, 218.
Cases may occur where although there may be no breach of official duty, the court on information given, will direct a prosecution by the district attorney. But they must be strong cases; such as render it unsafe to the public that the clerk be allow ed to discharge the duties of his office any longer.
Cases may occur, where, although there be not a breach of official duty, the court on information given, will direct the papers to be placed before the attorney of the state. But they must be strong cases. Such as induce a conviction that the person holding the office has committed acts which render it unsafe for the public that he should continue to discharge its duties. We have attentively perused and deliberately reflected on the evidence laid before us in this case, and we do not think it one which authorizes an interference. The charge is participation in an affray which ended in the death of a citizen, and for which the grand jury only found a bill for manslaughter against the principal.
It is, therefore, ordered, that the applicant take nothing by his motion.