Case Name: Police Jury of Lincoln Parish vs. William Harper
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1890-06
Citations: 42 La. 776
Docket Number: No. 1232
Parties: Police Jury of Lincoln Parish vs. William Harper.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
No. 1232.
Police Jury of Lincoln Parish vs. William Harper.
The case of State vs. Harper, recently decided, governs this ease.
APPEAL from the Third District Oourt for the Parish of Lincoln Barksdale, J.
E. H. McClendon, District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant:
1. When the defendantputs at issue, by demurrer, the legality or constitutionality of an ordinance of a municipal corporation, which imposes a fine for certain prohibited acts, the Supreme Oourt has jurisdiction of the appeal. 10 An. 310; Con., Art. 81. '
2. The police juries have the power to regulate whiskey shops, and impose a fine on those who violate such regulations, and said fine can be recovered by civil suit. Ii. K. 2713, paragraphs 6 and 7; Act 76 of 1881; 86 An. 912; 10 An. 310.
Potts & Hudson and F. W. Price for Defendant and Appellee.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Benner, J.
This suit arises under the same ordinance of the police jury of Lincoln parish which was recently considered by us in the case of the State vs. Harper, 42 An.
In our decision of that case, we stated the substance of the ordinance, which need not now be repeated. That case involved a criminal prosecution for violation of the ordinance, while this is a suit for the recovery of a fine or penalty for a like violation.
We held that the ordinance transcended the power delegated by the Legislature to the police jury, and was, therefore, illegal.
All the reasons assigned for quashing the criminal prosecution apply with equal force to fines and penalties imposed by the ordinance involved in this suit. The police jury had no more power to impose fines for violation of an illegal ordinance than to inflict criminal penalties for a like violation.
The judge a gao.rightly construed our opinion as declaring the ordinance to be ultra vires and illegal.
Judgment affirmed.