State ex rel. Perilloux v. Wilder

Decision Date10 January 1898
Docket Number12,594
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE EX REL. E. F. PERILLOUX v. W. O. WILDER, MAGISTRATE

Submitted December 16, 1897.

ON APPLICATION for Writs of Mandamus and Certiorari.

H. L Garland, Jr., for Relator.

Respondent in propria persona (Stifft & Madison of Counsel).

OPINION

BLANCHARD, J.

The complaint is that relator is denied the right of appeal, and the writ of mandamus is invoked to compel the granting of the same.

It appears that in May, 1897, the relator was charged before the mayor's court of the town of Slidell, parish of St Tammany, with the violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting any one from conducting the business of retail liquor dealer without having previously obtained a license.

On the trial he excepted to the power and jurisdiction of the court upon various grounds, among others that the ordinance in question is illegal and unconstitutional, and that Act No. 8 of 1896, authorizing municipal corporations to impose fines and imprisonment for non-payment of licenses as aforesaid, is unconstitutional.

His exceptions being overruled, he answered admitting the offence charged. Whereupon he was adjudged guilty and fined twenty-five dollars or ten days in the town jail.

A month later he applied to this court for writs of certiorari and prohibition against the enforcement of the sentence. A rule nisi issued, but on hearing was discharged on the ground that the mayor's court having jurisdiction, and there being an adequate remedy by appeal from its judgment, the writs applied for would not lie. 49 An. 1211.

Some time later relator filed an application in the mayor's court for an appeal to this court from the judgment imposing the sentence aforesaid. The mayor refused to grant the appeal, and thereupon relator filed the application for mandamus under consideration, averring that he has denied by appropriate pleas the legality and constitutionality of the fine imposed.

The respondent mayor, for cause why the writ should not be granted, returns and shows that on the trial aforesaid before him the relator, after his exceptions were overruled, filed an answer admitting the acts complained of and for which he was arrested, whereupon, after due trial, he was found guilty, sentenced to the penalty hereinbefore mentioned, and that the fine and costs were paid and the accused released from custody.

He therefore, pleads that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Malone
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • December 1, 2009
    ... ... Trahan, 157 La. 305, 102 So. 409 (1924) and State ex rel. Perilleux v. Wilder, 50 La. Ann. 388, 23 So. 203 (1898). In Trahan, this Court stated that "[a] ... ...
  • State v. Morris
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1976
    ... ... City of Lafayette v. Trahan, 157 La. 305, 102 So. 409 (1924); State ex rel. Perilloux v. Wilder, 50 La.Ann. 388, 23 So. 203 (1898); State ex rel. Lamarque v. Burthe, 39 ... ...
  • Wells v. Files
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1912
    ... ... C. P. 567; ... Williams v. Duer, 14 La. 523; State v. Judge, ... etc., 4 Rob. 85; Landry v. Connely, 4 Rob. 127; ... So. 542; Stinson, Guardian, v. O'Neal, 32 ... La.Ann. 947; State ex rel. Perilloux v. Magistrate, ... 50 La.Ann. 388, 23 So. 203; Crusel v ... ...
  • R. Beltran v. Leche
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1898
    ... ... C. C. 1517 ... There ... is here no "present state of admitted insolvency," ... as in the Tessier case, p. 478 ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT