City of Minden v. Harris
Decision Date | 03 February 1941 |
Docket Number | 36055 |
Citation | 196 La. 1021,200 So. 449 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | CITY OF MINDEN v. HARRIS. In re HARRIS |
W. T Drew, of Minden, for relator.
Robert F. Kennon, Dist. Atty., and Graydon K. Kitchens, Dist. Atty Pro Tem., both of Minden, for respondents.
Relator Willie Harris, having been convicted in the city court of Minden for violation of a city ordinance prohibiting the possession of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes appealed to the district court for the Parish of Webster. In that court, for the first time, by way of motion to quash the affidavit under which he has been charged, the relator raised the unconstitutionality of the ordinance. The trial judge refused to consider the motion to quash, assigning as reasons therefor that the jurisdiction of his court on appeals taken from the mayor's or city court in cases of this kind is limited to the merits of the case and that all questions with reference to the legality or unconstitutionality of the ordinance are appealable direct to the Supreme Court and should, therefore, have been urged in the city court in order to perfect the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The case is now before us on writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari granted for the purpose of reviewing the ruling of the trial court in refusing to consider the motion to quash.
The identical question raised here was before this court in the case of Town of Rayville v. Mann, 136 La. 237, 66 So. 957, 958, and in disposing of it the court held that since under the express provisions of Article 111 of the Constitution of 1913 ( ) trials of such cases are de novo in the district court, the defendant was entitled to have the validity of the town ordinance passed upon in the district court even though that issue had not been raised in the court of original jurisdiction but was raised for the first time in the district court. In the course of the opinion the court said:
See, also, the case of City of Shreveport v. Rambo, 169 La. 582, 125 So. 625.
But it is argued on behalf of the respondent judge that under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cramer v. Association Life Ins. Co., Inc.
...trial de novo, the whole case is open for decision. Town of Sulphur v. Stanley, 207 La. 1075, 22 So.2d 655 (1945); City of Minden v. Harris, 196 La. 1021, 200 So. 449 (1941). At a trial de novo the whole case is retried as if no prior trial whatever had been had. Pardue v. Stephens, 558 So.......
-
State v. Bickham
... ... to animals, was tried in the city court of Hammond, found ... guilty, and sentenced in each case to pay a fine of $100 and ... 237, 66 So. 956; City of ... Shreveport v. Rambo, 169 La. 582, 125 So. 625; City of Minden ... v. Harris, 196 La. 1021, 200 So. 449, and State ex rel. Town ... of Jennings v. Miller, 109 ... ...
-
Pardue v. Stephens
...court, the whole case is open for decision. Town of Sulphur v. Stanley, 207 La. 1075, 22 So.2d 655 (1945); City of Minden v. Harris, 196 La. 1021, 200 So. 449 (1941). At a trial de novo the whole case is retried as if there had been no prior trial whatever had been had. Black's Law Dictiona......
-
State v. Rehborg, 3-179A24
...which legitimately arise on the record, regardless of whether they were urged or relied on in the lower court. City of Minden v. Harris (1941), 196 La. 1021, 200 So. 449. Assuming arguendo that Rehborg did fail to object prior to the city court trial, he was not precluded from objecting at ......