Natal v. State of Louisiana
Citation | 11 S.Ct. 636,35 L.Ed. 288,139 U.S. 621 |
Parties | NATAL et al. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA |
Decision Date | 13 April 1891 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
J. Hale Sypher and West Steever, for plaintiffs in error.
Carleton Hunt, for the State.
The plaintiffs in error were severally complained of, tried, convicted, and sentenced in a recorder's court of the city of New Orleans for keeping a private market within six squares of a public market, in violation of section 4 of an ordinance of the city, copied in the margin,1 and passed under the authority conferred by the statute of Louisiana of 1878, No. 100, as follows The cases were consolidated, and on appeal to the supreme court of the state the judgments were affirmed. 39 La. Ann. 439, 1 South. Rep. 923. The plaintiffs in error contended in the recorder's court, and afterwards assigned for error, that their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States had been abridged, and that they had been deprived of liberty and property without due process of law, and had been denied the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States. The case is too plain for discussion. By the law of Louis- iana, as in states where the common law prevails, the regulation and control of markets for the sale of provisions, including the places and the distances from each other at which they may be kept, are maters of municipal police, and may be intrusted by the legislature to a city council, to be exercised as in its discretion the public health and convenience may require. Morano v. Mayor, 2 La. 217; Municipality v. Cutting, 4 La. Ann. 335; New Orleans v. Stafford, 27 La. Ann. 417; Bush v. Seabury, 8 Johns. 327, Buffalo v. Webster, 10 Wend. 100; Nightingale's Case, 11 Pick. 168; Com. v. Rice, 9 Metc. (Mass.) 253. The ordinance of the city of New Orleans, prohibiting the keeping of a private market within six squares of any public market of the city under penalty of a fine of $25 and of imprisonment for not more than 30 days if the fine is not paid, was within the authority constitutionally conferred upon the city council by the legislature of the state. A breach of such and ordinance is one of those petty offenses against municipal regulations of police which in Louisiana, as elsewhere, may be punished by summary proceedings before a magistrate, without trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisville Gas Electric Co v. Coleman
...An ordinance which prohibited the keeping of a private market within 6 squares of a public one but not within 7. Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U. S. 621, 11 S. Ct. 636, 35 L. Ed. 288. A statute which prohibited the herding of sheep within 2 miles of a dwelling house, but not if a yard or more bey......
-
U.S. v. Soderna, s. 95-1309
...to petty offenses. See Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 557, 8 S.Ct. 1301, 1307, 32 L.Ed. 223 (1888); Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U.S. 621, 624, 11 S.Ct. 636, 637, 35 L.Ed. 288 (1891). According to the Court, what offenses are petty should be determined "not subjectively by recourse of the judge......
-
Duncan v. State of Louisiana
...57 S.Ct. 660, 81 L.Ed. 843 (1937); Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 24 S.Ct. 826, 49 L.Ed. 99 (1904); Natal v. State of Louisiana, 139 U.S. 621, 11 S.Ct. 636, 35 L.Ed. 288 (1891); see Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 8 S.Ct. 1301, 32 L.Ed. 223 (1888). See generally Frankfurter & Corcora......
-
Cheff v. Schnackenberg
...offenses, commonly described as 'petty,' which were tried summarily without a jury * * *.' See also Natal v. State of Louisiana, 139 U.S. 621, 11 S.Ct. 636, 35 L.Ed. 288 (1891); Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 141—142, 14 S.Ct. 499, 502—503, 38 L.Ed. 385 (1894); Schick v. United States, 195......