Lecourt v. Gaster

• Decision Date: 21 March 1898
• Docket Number: 12,640
• Citation: 50 La.Ann. 521,23 So. 463
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: PAUL LECOURT v. DEXTER S. GASTER

23 So. 463

50 La.Ann. 521

PAUL LECOURT v. DEXTER S. GASTER

No. 12,640

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 21, 1898

Argued March 9, 1898.

Rehearing Refused April 18, 1898.

APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Ellis, J.

E. A O'Sullivan, for Plaintiff, Appellant.

Samuel L. Gilmore, City Attorney, and W. B. Sommerville, Assistant City Attorney, for Defendant, Appellee.

OPINION

BREAUX, J.

This was an action for damages against the Superintendent of Police of the city of New Orleans. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant misinterpreted the law known as the Sunday law. He alleged that the defendant ordered him to close his saloon at West End every Saturday night at 12 o'clock, and that he, to avoid arrest, closed his saloon.

He insists that the Sunday law does not apply to his saloon that it is exempt from the prohibition contained in the act.

He asserts that defendant for some time recognized his right to open his saloon on Sunday, but that in September, 1896, he took upon himself to order plaintiff to close his saloon.

Defendant's exceptions of want of jurisdiction ratione materiae and of no cause of action were sustained. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment dismissing his suit.

There is no complaint here of any particular act of unfairness or discrimination in the execution of the law. We take it that it was made to apply to all alike in the locality in which the defendant has a saloon. Its proper to take it for granted that no partiality was shown. The maxim omnia rite applies.

The gravemen of the charge is, that the statute does not apply to the establishments located and maintained where petitioner has his place of business.

After an examination of the question presented, and after having considered the authorities, we found no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that as relates to trespass and the invasion of private rights the civil courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine suit for damages.

Damages may arise from an offence (R. S. 985) recoverable only in a civil court. The civil courts, in these cases, may interpret the criminal statutes and render judgment for actionable damages. Having recognized the right of one injured to sue and sustain an action in the civil courts for trespass and wrong upon his personal right it remained for us to determine, whether plaintiff's allegations set forth a cause of action.

The officer owes a responsibility to the public. He is presumed in the discharge of his functions to have acted in accordance with law, until the contrary is made evident. To sustain an action in damages against an officer, it must be shown that he grossly abused his authority.

It has been decided, as to him, a mistake such as a person of ordinary care and intelligence might make, will not amount to an actionable abuse. Under his obligation it was defendant's duty to look to the enforcement of the law. The right of action against an officer is limited. It must...