State ex rel. Noe v. Knop
Decision Date | 12 June 1939 |
Docket Number | 17205. |
Citation | 190 So. 135 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Parties | STATE EX REL. NOE v. KNOP, CIVIL SHERIFF. |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1939.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division A; Hugh C. Cage, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by the State of Louisiana, on the relation of James A. Noe, against Louis Knop, Jr., Civil Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans, to compel defendant to permit relator to take photographs of the poll books containing names of voters of the Parish of Orleans. Judgment for relator and defendant appeals suspensively.
Affirmed.
D. M Ellison, Atty. Gen., and Frank Wm. Hart and Charles J. Rivet both of New Orleans, for appellant.
James David McNeill, of New Orleans, for appellee.
The relator, James A. Noe, prays for the issuance of alternative writs of mandamus, seeking thereby to compel Louis Knop, Jr., Civil Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans, to permit relator " to take photographs of the poll books containing the names of voters of the Parish of Orleans".
He alleges that on Tuesday, March 7, 1939, at about 10:30 a. m., he " presented himself at the office of the said Louis Knop, Jr. and requested permission of the said Louis Knop, Jr. in his capacity as Civil Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans, to take photographs of the poll books containing the names of the voters of the Parish of Orleans" ; that he was provided " with all of the equipment necessary for the taking of said photographs" and that he " offered to make the said photographs in such a way as would not interfere with the Civil Sheriff in the performance of his duties".
Knop filed exceptions of vagueness and of no cause of action and, with a reservation of his rights under these exceptions, filed answer admitting that he is the Civil Sheriff and in effect admitting that the poll registration books of the Parish of Orleans are in his custody, but averring that " * * relator's visit to respondent's office with the equipment referred to, disrupted the operations of his office and delayed the performance of his duties as the executive officer of this court; that relator's equipment required for its use the consumption of electrical current, which is paid for with public funds" ; and Knop further averred that " if the law did permit of the taking of photographs, the taking of such in the manner proposed by the relator would cause serious inconvenience to the operations of respondent's office, to the detriment of the duties which he and his deputies and employees are required to perform * *".
Both exceptions were overruled and, after trial on the merits, there was judgment in favor of Noe making peremptory the writ of mandamus and, accordingly, ordering respondent to give permission for the photographing of the said poll books.
From this judgment Knop has appealed suspensively to this court.
According to the brief filed on behalf of Knop, the exception of vagueness is directed at the fact that the prayer of Noe does not in detail " designate any specific acts which he demands of respondent".
The answer to this contention lies in the fact that Noe does not demand of the Sheriff any affirmative act at all. He merely asks that the Sheriff refrain from interfering with the taking of the photographs; only that the Sheriff grant permission--not that he do anything else. In other words, while relator seeks a mandamus, he in effect requests that he be granted the effect which would follow from the issuance of an injunction. This demand was set forth with sufficient clarity to permit of compliance by anyone desiring to comply.
The questions on which the entire legal issue depends are presented by the exception of no cause of action, which we shall next consider.
Through this exception Knop maintains that, as a matter of law, the constitutional provision on which Noe relies does not give to him, nor to anyone else, the right to demand the permission which is sought.
Prior to the approval by the People of this State of Act No. 230 of 1934 as a constitutional amendment to Section 2 of Article VIII of the Constitution of 1921, it was required of any prospective voter, as one of the prerequisites to the right to vote in any year, that he produce poll tax receipts showing the payment by him of a poll tax during the two preceding years. By the constitutional amendment referred to, there was substituted the requirement that each prospective voter should, during the two preceding years, register his name in records to be kept for that purpose and obtain certificates showing those registrations. That constitutional amendment reads as follows:
The contention of Noe is that he, or anyone else, without assigning any reason, may demand permission to photograph any such poll book, or any part thereof, and to take as many photographs as he desires. This right is said to be based on the following provision, which we again quote from the above set forth amendment: " * * * any one desiring to take a photograph of the same or any part thereof shall be permitted so to do by the said sheriff."
The sheriff makes the following contentions:
(1) That throughout the entire amendment, with one exception (where the books of the various parishes are referred to), the word " book" is used in the singular and that, since it is conceded that in the Parish of Orleans there are many books, it is obvious that it could not have been the intention of the framers of the amendment and of the people who adopted that it should apply to the poll " books" which are kept in the Parish of Orleans.
(2) That the provision requires that permission be granted for the taking of " a" photograph and that, therefore, the demand of Mr. Noe, who requests permission to take more than one photograph, exceeds the right granted even if any right at all is actually granted by the amendment.
(3) That there is no provision in the amendment which places upon the " Civil" Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans any duty other than that of merely allowing the poll books to remain in his office and that nowhere in the amendment is there placed upon said Civil Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans the duty of permitting the said books to be photographed.
(4) That even if it be conceded that the people of the state, in adopting the amendment, intended that the word " book" in the singular should contemplate the many books which are required in the Parish of Orleans, and even if it be conceded that, in declaring that the poll books for the Parish of Orleans " shall be in the office of the Civil Sheriff" it was intended that the said Civil Sheriff should perform, in connection with the books, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gray v. Bryant
... Page 846 ... 125 So.2d 846 ... R. A. GRAY, as Secretary of State of the State of Florida, and Ray E. Green, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellants, ... State ex rel. City of Fulton v. Smith, 1946, 355 Mo. 27, 194 S.W.2d 302. If the provision lays down a ... State ex rel. Noe v. Knop, ... Page 852 ... La.App.1939, 190 So. 135; Brice v. McDow, 1921, 116 S.C. 324, 108 S.E. 84 ... ...
-
Callais Cablevision, Inc. v. Houma Cablevision, Inc.
...action is necessary by a legislative body to give it effect. Cf. State v. Flynn, 160 La. 483, 107 So. 314 (1926); State ex rel. Noe v. Knop, 190 So. 135 (La.App.Orl.1939). 2 If a provision of law is incomplete in itself and contemplates supplemental and enabling legislation, it is not self-......
-
Telephone Communications, In re
...v. Bliss, 156 Ohio St. 147, 101 N.E.2d 289; Morgan v. Board of Supervisors, 67 Ariz. 133, 192 P.2d 236; State ex rel. Noe v. Knop, La.App., 190 So. 135, 142--143 (La.Ct.App.); 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, § 72, p. 689, and cases there Invoking the presumption that constitutional provisio......
-
Student Government Ass'n of Louisiana State University and Agr. and Mechanical College v. Board of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University and Agr. and Mechanical College, 8524
...the legislature shall prescribe means by which said policy shall be carried out, the provision is not self-executory. State ex rel. Noe v. Knopp, La.App., 190 So. 135. It is noteworthy that Constitution Art. XII, Section 7, was proposed as an amendment to the Constitution as Senate Bill 126......