State v. Natal

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Natal

38 La. Ann. 967

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 15, 1886

DocketNo. 9582

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 La. Ann. 967 (State v. Natal) 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. Natal, 38 La. Ann. 967 (La. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

This appeal is taken from a sentence imposing a fine for violation of an ordinance of the city of New Orleans, No. 4798, A. S., known as the Private Market Ordinance.

The objections to the legality and constitutionality of said fine are several, viz:

[968]*9681st. That the prosecution cannot be conducted in the name of the State on the affidavit of a private individual, but that the city is the proper and necessary party to conduct such prosecutions.

Under Article 86 of the Constitution, which provides that c‘ all prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by the authority of the State of Louisiana,” and in the absence of any legislative direction authorizing prosecutions for violations of her ordinances, to be conducted in the name of the city of New Orleans, we think the prosecution was properly instituted in the name of the State. 1 Dillon Munic. Corp. §429, and authorities there cited; see also, State vs. Gisch, 31 Ann. 544, which was a prosecution in the name of the State under the same ordinance.

2d. The remaining objections go to the legality and constitutionality of the ordinance.'

They have been heretofore considered and overruled by this Court in two cases. State vs. Gisch, 31 Ann. 544; City vs. Wolf, 36 Ann. 986.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

This appeal is taken from a sentence imposing a fine for violation of an ordinance of the city of New Orleans, No. 4798, A. S., known as the Private Market Ordinance.

The objections to the legality and constitutionality of said fine are several, viz:

[968]*9681st. That the prosecution cannot be conducted in the name of the State on the affidavit of a private individual, but that the city is the proper and necessary party to conduct such prosecutions.

Under Article 86 of the Constitution, which provides that c‘ all prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by the authority of the State of Louisiana,” and in the absence of any legislative direction authorizing prosecutions for violations of her ordinances, to be conducted in the name of the city of New Orleans, we think the prosecution was properly instituted in the name of the State. 1 Dillon Munic. Corp. §429, and authorities there cited; see also, State vs. Gisch, 31 Ann. 544, which was a prosecution in the name of the State under the same ordinance.

2d. The remaining objections go to the legality and constitutionality of the ordinance.'

They have been heretofore considered and overruled by this Court in two cases. State vs. Gisch, 31 Ann. 544; City vs. Wolf, 36 Ann. 986.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 La. Ann. 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-natal-la-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack