State ex rel. Courrege v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 10 January 1898 |
| Docket Number | 12,584 |
| Citation | 50 La.Ann. 45,23 So. 92 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA EX REL. J. M. COURREGE v. JOHN FISHER, MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF NEW IBERIA |
Submitted September 6, 1897.
Decree Amended As To Costs and Rehearing Refused February 7, 1898.
APPLICATION for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition.
L. O Hacker, Weeks & Weeks and Foster & Broussard, for Relator.
A. J Cammack and Walter J. Burke & Bro., for Respondent.
The relator complains of an order for his incarceration in prison issued by the mayor of the town of New Iberia.
This order is based upon a trial and conviction had before the mayor's court for a violation of a municipal ordinance.
The ordinance in question is as follows:
" That it shall be unlawful for the owner, manager or clerk of any saloon or coffee-house within the limits of the town of New Iberia * * * to invite, admit or permit to remain therein any lewd woman or prostitute, for the purpose of drinking carousing or any other lewd or immoral purpose, or any purpose whatever, and any proprietor of such place, or his clerk or agent, violating the foregoing provisions, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars, or imprisonment not to exceed five days, or both, at the discretion of the mayor."
The facts are that two lewd negro women at night entered the saloon in the rear of relator's store; one of them bought an intoxicating drink and divided it with her companion, both drinking the liquor in the saloon. A policeman of the town witnessed this violation of the ordinance and reported it to the mayor. The next morning the relator was summoned before the mayor's court to answer to the complaint. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of twenty-five dollars.
After a short interval, the accused, having said nothing and intimated no purpose of paying the fine, was asked by the mayor what he intended doing about it. He replied that he would not pay the fine.
The mayor then ordered him committed to the town prison for ten days.
Thereupon the accused, finding he was about to be imprisoned, declared his willingness to pay the fine of twenty-five dollars "under protest." But the mayor declined to so receive it and directed the order of imprisonment to be carried into effect.
The relator then applied to this court for its remedial writs of certiorari and prohibition, praying that the validity of the proceedings of the mayor's court be inquired into and passed upon, and for judgment avoiding the same and releasing him from incarceration thereunder.
This prayer is based upon allegations of illegality, and nullity in reference to both form and matter.
Summarized, certain of them are as follows:
1. Want of affidavit charging violation of the ordinance.
2. No warrant issued for his arrest.
3. No opportunity given to summon witnesses, nor to prepare his defence, nor to be heard through counsel.
The writs applied for can not be maintained on any of these grounds. Two of the propositions are erroneous in law; the third without foundation in fact.
The mayor's court had jurisdiction. The charter of the town shows his authority to impose the fine. There was an ordinance forbidding the act of which relator was guilty. There can be no question of the validity of this ordinance. It was within the police power of the town. There was warrant in the charter for it. A trial usual before mayor's courts was had. The result of that trial was the imposition of a fine authorized by the ordinance.
The course of procedure before a mayor's court is summary. Proceedings for the punishment of offenders against municipal ordinances enacted in virtue of implied or incidental powers of corporations, or in the exercise of legitimate police authority for the preservation of peace, good order, safety and health, and which relate to minor acts and matters, are not usually or properly regarded as criminal. A. and E. Ency of Law, Vol. 24, 504; State vs. Gutierrez, 15 An. 192; Natal vs. Louisiana, 139 U.S. 621; Mayor and City Council vs. Meuer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Lang
... ... provisions of Act No. 82 of 1884, for State taxes due thereon ... for the years from 1871 to 1878, both inclusive, ... doctrine announced in State ex rel. Martinez vs ... Tax Collector, 42 An. 677, and State ex rel ... ...