State v. Abrams

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Abrams

44 So. 807, 119 La. 981, 1907 La. LEXIS 577

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 12, 1907

DocketNo. 16,861

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 44 So. 807 (State v. Abrams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Abrams, 44 So. 807, 119 La. 981, 1907 La. LEXIS 577 (La. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

NICHOLLS, J.

It appears from the allegations of relator’s petition applying for writs of certiorari and prohibition, that, in September, 1907, the district attorney for the Sixth judicial district filed an injunction in the district court for the parish of Ouachita, charging relator with having violated Act No. 57 of 1898, known as the “slot machine law,” in that he permitted a minor to play or gamble with a slot machine; that he was arrested under a warrant based upon said information, and was arraigned on the charge made against him; that in October, 1907, he was tried upon and convicted under that charge; that thereupon he filed motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, alleging that Act No. 57 of '1898 was illegal and void, for the reason that it was violative of article 31 of the Constitution of 1898, for a number of reasons assigned; that the motions for a new trial and in arrest were overruled; that the judge of the district court was about to sentence him under the provisions of the act mentioned, and will do so unless prohibited from so doing, from which sentence he will have and has no right of appeal; that his only remedy is through writs of certiorari and prohibition.

In view of the premises he prays that this court command the district judge to certify the record in the said ease and send the same to this court; that he be restrained and pro[983]*983hibited from proceeding further in the said case, and from passing sentence upon him; that the said Act No. 87 of 1898 be decreed illegal and unconstitutional, null, and void; and that he be discharged from custody.

It will be seen that the proceedings against the relator have run their entire course, with the exception of sentence being pronounced against him. The court, after consideration, sees no reason why it should interfere as matters now stand. Relator will receive no legal injury by having sentence pronounced against him, as he can, through recourse to this court at the proper time and in the proper manner, obtain full and adequate relief, if entitled thereto; and there are good reasons why this court should not interpose its authority before sentence.

The court adheres to the view expressed by it on this subject in State ex rel. Crozier v. Judge, 49 La. Ann. 1451, 22 South. 421.

The application of relator for writs of certiorari and prohibition is refused, without prejudice to his right to apply for such writs after sentence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NICHOLLS, J.

It appears from the allegations of relator’s petition applying for writs of certiorari and prohibition, that, in September, 1907, the district attorney for the Sixth judicial district filed an injunction in the district court for the parish of Ouachita, charging relator with having violated Act No. 57 of 1898, known as the “slot machine law,” in that he permitted a minor to play or gamble with a slot machine; that he was arrested under a warrant based upon said information, and was arraigned on the charge made against him; that in October, 1907, he was tried upon and convicted under that charge; that thereupon he filed motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, alleging that Act No. 57 of '1898 was illegal and void, for the reason that it was violative of article 31 of the Constitution of 1898, for a number of reasons assigned; that the motions for a new trial and in arrest were overruled; that the judge of the district court was about to sentence him under the provisions of the act mentioned, and will do so unless prohibited from so doing, from which sentence he will have and has no right of appeal; that his only remedy is through writs of certiorari and prohibition.

In view of the premises he prays that this court command the district judge to certify the record in the said ease and send the same to this court; that he be restrained and pro[983]*983hibited from proceeding further in the said case, and from passing sentence upon him; that the said Act No. 87 of 1898 be decreed illegal and unconstitutional, null, and void; and that he be discharged from custody.

It will be seen that the proceedings against the relator have run their entire course, with the exception of sentence being pronounced against him. The court, after consideration, sees no reason why it should interfere as matters now stand. Relator will receive no legal injury by having sentence pronounced against him, as he can, through recourse to this court at the proper time and in the proper manner, obtain full and adequate relief, if entitled thereto; and there are good reasons why this court should not interpose its authority before sentence.

The court adheres to the view expressed by it on this subject in State ex rel. Crozier v. Judge, 49 La. Ann. 1451, 22 South. 421.

The application of relator for writs of certiorari and prohibition is refused, without prejudice to his right to apply for such writs after sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 So. 807, 119 La. 981, 1907 La. LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-abrams-la-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack