Volume 153 — Louisiana Reports

<p> (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.) </p> <p>1. Partnership t&wkey;>l46(l) — Indorsee of notes cannot recover without showing partner’s authority to indorse for his own account.</p> <p>One to whom a member of a partnership to which notes were payable indorsed them for his own account is not entitled to recover thereon without proof that the indorsing partner was authorized to indorse them for the 1 firm.</p> <p>2. Appeal and error &wkey;sl 177(7) — Case remanded for further evidence as to partner’s authority to indorse notes instead of rendering judgment of nonsuit.</p> <p>In an action on notes payable to a partnership and indorsed to plaintiff by one of the partners for his own account, as the only judgment that could be rendered against plaintiff for failure of the evidence to show such partner’s authority would be one of nonsuit, the case will be remanded for further evidence on the question of authority under Code Prae. art. 906.</p>

Dowling, Judge. Proceeding by the State against Charles J. Armbruster and A. Methe, surety. From a judgment setting aside a judgment forfeiting accused’s appearance bond, the State appeals.

<p>Appeal from Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita; Fred M. Odom, Judge.</p> <p>Suit by L. L. Lieber against the Ouachita Natural Gas & Oil Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff' appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish .of Allen; Thos. F. Porter, Jr., Judge.</p> <p>Andy Lowry was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, and he appeals.</p>

<p> (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.) </p> <p>Perjury <8=U4 — Attempted subornation net an offense.</p> <p>Under Rev. St. § 857, as amended by Act No. 18 of 1888, it is not a criminal offense to attempt to procure a person to commit perjury.</p>

<p> (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.) </p> <p>1. Jury <®=>64 — Commission held to have substantially complied with statute in selecting names for venire, list.</p> <p>The statute was substantially complied with by the jury commission in selecting names for venire list where they removed from original list and from venire box names of those Who had served, died, removed, or become exempt or disqualified, and substituted (sufficient number of other qualified jurors.</p> <p>2. Grand Jury <©=.16 — Jury <§=>82(l)— irregularities in selection not ground for quashing venires in absence of fraud or prejudice.</p> <p>Under Act No, 135 of 1898, § 15, irregularities in the selection of grand and petit juries were not ground for quashing the venire where it was not shown that any fraud was practiced or wrong committed prejudicial to de-, fendant.</p>

<p>Appeal from Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Avoyelles; S. Allen Bordelon, Judge.</p> <p>Two actions by the J. H. Hines Company, Incorporated, against Amet Guillot, Sheriff and ex officio Tax Collector, and others. From the judgment in the first action, defendants appeal, and, from the judgment in the second action, plaintiff appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans; N. E. Humphrey, Judge.</p> <p>Harry Tervalon was convicted of possessing stolen goods, knowing they were stolen, and' he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Winn; Cas Moss, Judge.</p> <p>Suit by Miss Inez Satcher and others against A. W. Radesich, Sr., and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.</p>

Criminal prosecution by tihe State against Jake Dolberger. Defendant’s motion to show cause why the case should not be transferred to another section of the criminal district court or dismissed was overruled, and he applies for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.

<p> (Syllabus by the Court.) </p> <p>On Motion to Dismiss.</p> <p>1. Courts <&wkey;224(7) — Supreme Court has jurisdiction when illegality of ordinance in contest, though ordinance sustained.</p> <p>Article 7, § 10, Const. 1921, gives this court appellate jurisdiction in all cases “where the legality, or constitutionality of any fine, forfeiture, or penalty imposed by a parish, municipal corporation, board, or subdivision of the state shall be in contest, whatever may be the amount thereof”; and it is not necessary that the ordinance imposing same shall have been declared illegal or unconstitutional. As to acts of the Legislature, the Constitution provides a different rule.</p> <p>On the Merits.'</p> <p>2. Food &wkey;sl— Ordinance not oppressive or illegal because requiring seller to ascertain whether milk is within prohibition.</p> <p>An ordinance intended to suppress the sale of unwholesome or adulterated milk is not oppressive or illegal because, in the public interest, it puts upon the seller the burden of ascertaining at his peril that the article he sells is not within the prohibition- of the ordinance.</p> <p> (Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.) </p> <p>On Rehearing.</p> <p>3. Criminal law &wkey;l 134(3) — Appeal from judgment on demurrer dismissed as moot where appeal on merits has resulted in acquittal.</p> <p>> Appeal from judgment overruling demurrer will be dismissed as moot where since rendition of such judgment appeal to criminal district court on the merits has been tried and resulted in defendant’s acquittal.</p>

<p>Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orle.ans; George H. Théard, Judge.</p> <p>Action by A. Held against Ralph Goldsmith. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.</p>