State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 01 May 1892 |
| Docket Number | 10,035 |
| Citation | 11 So. 132,44 La.Ann. 783 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. WILLIE TAYLOR |
APPEAL from the Twenty-fifth District Court, Parish of Lafayette. Mouton, J.
W. H Rogers, Attorney General, for the State, Appellee.
Wm Campbell, L. L. Tansey, C. Girard and Jos. A. Chargois, for Appellants.
The defendant was indicted for murder, tried and convicted for manslaughter, and sentenced to the penitentiary to seven years' imprisonment, from which judgment he has appealed.
He filed motions to quash the indictment and the venire drawn for the second and third weeks.
The two motions are based on the same grounds and supported by the same evidence.
1. That the persons who acted as jury commissioners had no authority to act in that capacity, having never been appointed, and if appointed no record was made of the fact in the minutes of the court, as required by Sec. 3 of Act 44 of 1877.
The jury commissioners were duly appointed by the judge, out of term, and an order rendered for the appointments to be spread upon the minutes.
The clerk omitted to perform this part of his duty. This omission can not destroy the fact of the appointments, and render null and void the act of the judge in making them. Section 3 of said act is only directory. 5 An. 155.
The appointments of these commissioners by the judge, the "oath book," to show that the commissioners had qualified, and the proces verbal of the venire that they had acted as commissioners, were offered and received in evidence over defendant's objection, which was that the best and only evidence of the appointments was the minutes of the court.
As the recordation in the minutes of the court was only directory and, as said above, its omission could not destroy or do away with the fact of the appointment, the commissioners appointment and oath of office were the best evidence of their official capacities.
The venire was corroborative to show that they had accepted the appointment and had entered upon the discharge of their duties.
2. That one of the said jury commissioners, who participated in the drawing of the jury, was disqualified to act, as he had been elected, and had qualified since his appointment as jury commissioner, as a member of the town council for the town of Lafayette.
Article 159 of the Constitution provides that "no person shall hold or exercise at the same time more than one office of trust or profit, except that of justice of the peace or notary public."
In the Constitution of 1845 there was an article of similar import, as follows: "That no person shall hold or exercise at the same time more than one civil office of emolument."
In interpreting this article in the case of Dorsey vs. Vaughn, 5 An. 155, the court held that the acceptance of the office of parish tax collector by the sheriff did not violate said article, as the office of parish tax collector was a municipal office, and that the incompatibility contemplated by the Constitution was the holding of two State offices.
In the Constitution of 1852 there was a similar provision, and it was held by this court that a police juryman was not an officer within the intendment of Article 122.
Since then in recent years police juries have been made State officials by legislative enactment. They are appointed by the Governor and our decrees have recognized them as such, and in 29 Annual, 24, and 42 Annual, page 947, we held that the acceptance of the office of police juror by one holding the office of jury commissioner, vacated the latter office.
If the office is created by the Legislature, or is established in the first instance by the Constitution, it is a State office, and the holding at the same time two offices so created would manifestly violate Article 159 of the present Constitution.
Conceding that the member of a municipal council (upon which point we express no opinion) is an officer, it is not a State office, and the Article No. 159 can have no application, as it has reference only to holding at the same time two State offices.
3. That the jury commission failed to comply with the provisions of Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirby v. Nolte, Consolidated Causes No. 38082.
......Constitution of Missouri, Article IX, Secs. 20, 22, 23; State ex inf. v. Lindell Ry. Co., 151 Mo. 162. (a) All courts in this State are required to take judicial notice of the Charter. Constitution of Missouri, ...(2d) 495; Dorsey v. Vaughan, 5 La. Ann. 153; State v. Wilmington, 3 Harrington, 294; Hood v. Dahlgren, 6 La. Ann. 175; State v. Taylor, 44 La. Ann. 783; State v. Phenix, 134 La. Ann. 329; State v. Platt, 44 Ind. 401; Lang v. Rose, 64 S.E. 84. Restrictions as to the choice of officers ......
-
Kirby v. Nolte
...... Constitution and laws of Missouri. Constitution of Missouri,. Article IX, Secs. 20, 22, 23; State ex inf. v. Lindell Ry. Co., 151 Mo. 162. (a) All courts in this State are required. to take judicial notice of the Charter. Constitution of. ...Vaughan, 5 La. Ann. 153;. State v. Wilmington, 3 Harrington, 294; Hood v. Dahlgren, 6 La. Ann. 175; State v. Taylor, 44. La. Ann. 783; State v. Phenix, 134 La. Ann. 329;. State v. Platt, 44 Ind. 401; Lang v. Rose, . 64 S.E. 84. Restrictions as to the ......
-
State v. Dark
...or one established in the first instance by the Constitution.’ State v. Titus, 152 La. 1011, 95 So. 106, 107. See, also, State v. Taylor, 44 La.Ann. 783, 11 So. 132, and State v. Rogers, 138 La. 867, 70 So. 863. In the Titus case the court, continuing, said: ‘ This definition as to what con......
-
Feary v. Regional Transit Authority, Civ. A. No. 88-0152.
......The RTA raises the defense of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Because the RTA is not an arm of the State of Louisiana for immunity purposes, its defense must fail. Defendant's position, that plaintiff's suit can only be brought in state ...State, 387 So.2d 1151 (La.1980) (distinguishing state offices from municipal offices). 19 Id. at 1152 (quoting State v. Taylor, 44 La. Ann. 783, 784, 11 So. 132, 133 (1892)), cited in Voisin's Oyster House, Inc. v. Guidry, 799 F.2d 183, 186 (5th Cir.1986). 20 ......