Skip to main content
· 1/19/1903

State ex rel. Babin v. Foster

Citations

  • 109 La. 587
  • 33 So. 611
  • 1903 La. LEXIS 415

Syllabus

<p>PEACE BOND — DEFAULT — COSTS — IMPRISONMENT-JUSTICES OF THE PEACE — SALARIES —CRIMINAL LAW — POLICE JURIES — HABEAS CORPUS.</p> <p>1. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution of 1898 the law was that parties placed under peace bonds should, in addition to giving the bond, pay the costs of the proceedings taken.</p> <p>2. And a party required to give a peace bond could lawfully be committed to prison in default of giving the bond and paying the costs.</p> <p>3. But the Constitution of 1898, in lieu of the old system of costs in criminal matters, including peace bond cases, before justices of the peace, directs police juries to arrange for salaries to magistrates and constables.</p> <p>4. It is the duty of police juries to do this. But whether they do or not the constitutional inhibition applies: — justices of the peace and constables are to receive no fees (i. e. — costs) in criminal matters and peace bond cases.</p> <p>5. There is no law authorizing police juries, in providing salaries for justices of the peace and constables, to empower them to continue to collect costs in criminal matters and peace bond cases and turn same over to the parish.</p> <p>6. Whether or not the General Assembly could, by statute, delegate such authority to police juries, does not ai-ise herein and opinion as to it is reserved.</p> <p>7. Under the law as it now. stands a justice of the peace is without authority to require the payment of costs in addition to giving the peace bond exacted.</p> <p>8. Where a party is' committed in default of giving the peace bond and paying the costs, the judgment on habeas corpus should have been limited to directing his release on giving the bond; it should not have gone further and ordered his unqualified release.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “But the Court agrees that the time spent by counsel . . . moving for an extension of time to file a reply brief . . . [is] not reasonably expended and therefore [is] not properly charged to Defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blanchard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.