State v. King
| Decision Date | 26 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | 29433 |
| Citation | 167 La. 350,119 So. 252 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. KING |
Appeal from Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne; Robert B. Butler, Judge.
Ivy King was convicted of deserting and willfully neglecting his wife and minor child, and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Harris Gagne, of Houma, for appellant.
Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., and J. A. O. Coignet, Dist. Atty., of Thibodaux, and E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was charged by information filed in the district court with deserting and willfully neglecting his wife and minor child, in violation of the provisions of Act 34 of 1902. His only defense on the trial of the case was that the court below was without jurisdiction because a short time prior to the date on which the offense was alleged to have been committed he had moved from the parish of Terrebonne to the parish of East Baton Rouge. The trial judge held that the defense was not well founded, and that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the parish jail for a term of six months and to pay a fine of $ 82 to be turned over, when paid, to his wife for herself and as custodian of his minor child. The trial judge also issued an order sentencing and ordering defendant to pay to his wife an additional sum of $ 5 a week for the space of one year, and that, upon payment of the original fine, defendant be released from custody under the jail sentence imposed upon probation for the space of one year on furnishing a bond of $ 250, conditioned upon his personally appearing before the court whenever ordered to do so within the year and his further compliance with the terms of the order or any subsequent modification thereof. The present appeal is from the conviction and sentence.
The defendant contends that his domicile is in the parish of East Baton Rouge, which is the venue of his alleged offense, and further, that the sentence imposed is not authorized by the statute. On the other hand, the state contends that the record is barren of any evidence showing the intention on the part of the defendant to change his domicile to the parish of East Baton Rouge, and that the venue of the offense charged is the place where defendant owes the duty of supporting his wife and child, which is the matrimonial domicile in the parish of Terrebonne.
We are not, however, in a position to pass upon the issues raised by defendant's appeal. The penalty provided by Act 34 of 1902 for its violation is a fine not exceeding $ 100, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the court's discretion. It is also provided that, should a fine be imposed, it may be directed by the court to be paid in whole or in part, to the wife or to the tutor or custodian of the minor. There is a further provision in the statute empowering the court to order the defendant, on a recognizance with or without sureties, before trial (with the defendant's consent) or after conviction, instead of the fine or imprisonment, or in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stell v. Caylor, 2679
...imposed for the violation of some law, rule or regulation. Hanks v. Shreveport Yellow Cabs, 187 So. 817 (2nd Cir. 1939); State v. King, 167 La. 350, 119 So. 252. The deposit in the present case did not constitute a fine. It was simply a sum deposited by the employees to insure the return of......
-
State v. Thomas
...must be noted by us even in the absence of a plea to our appellate jurisdiction. State v. Roy, 152 La. 933, 94 So. 703; State v. King, 167 La. 350, 119 So. 252; State v. Varnado, 208 La. 319, 23 So.2d 106. For the reasons assigned the appeal is dismissed. 1 See also Art. 7, Sec. 52, La.Cons......
-
Hanks v. Shreveport Yellow Cabs, Inc.
...to agree with his position. The word " fine" in its ordinary acceptation has the distinct meaning of a pecuniary penalty. State v. King, 167 La. 350, 119 So. 252.A penalty its primary sense denotes a punishment imposed for the commission of an offense or for some violation. The charges in t......
-
State v. Lejeune
...It therefore follows that this Court is without jurisdiction to pass on the question involved in defendant's appeal. State v. King, 167 La. 350, 119 So. 252. For reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed. O'NIELL, C. J., takes no part. ODOM, J., absent. ...