
    (94 South. 446)
    No. 25564.
    STATE v. LOUIS. Ex parte STATE ex rel. LEWIS.
    (Oct. 30, 1922.
    On Application for Rehearing, Nov. 27, 1922.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Habeas corpus &wkey;>62 — Case disposed of on application when undisputed facts show sentence is null.
    A habeas corpus case will be finally disposed of on the application for the writ where there is no dispute over the facts and they show that the sentence under which the prisoner is confined is null.
    2. Infants &wkey;>l8 — Minors; district^court held to have jurisdiction only as juvenile court of criminal charges against one under 17.
    Under Const. 1913, art. 118, as amended in 1916 (see Laws 1916, No. 13), and in 1918 by Act No. 201 (see Laws 1920, appendix, p. 13), the district court had jurisdiction only as a juvenile court, and not when sitting as an ordinary court, of charges of burglary and larceny against one under 17 years of age, at least where it did not consider the question of juvenility and find him to be over that age.
    Erwin Louis was convicted of burglary and larceny, and application is made for writ of habeas corpus in his behalf in the name of the State, on the relation of John Lewis.
    Sentence annulled, with directions.
    J. H. Pugh, of Plaquemine, for applicant.
    A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and George Seth Guión, Asst. Atty. Gen., for A. D. Bryan, warden.
    By the WHOLE COURT.
   PROVOSTY, C. J.

This is an application to this court for habeas corpus in behalf of Erwin Louis, who is being held as a convict in the state penitentiary, to have the-sentence under which he is held decreed null as having been rendered by a court without jurisdiction.

We have concluded that the writ should issue; and, as there is no dispute over the facts of the case, and as we have concluded that for the reason assigned the sentence in question is null, we will proceed to dispose finally of the case.

'Erwin Louis pleaded guilty in the district court of the parish of Iberville in August, 1920, to bills of information for burglary and larceny, and was sentenced by that court to 10 years in the penitentiary. For his trial the court sat as an ordinary court; and proceeded in the forms customary in the cases of adults.

The contention in his behalf is that the court had jurisdiction only as a juvenile court. The contention is well founded. Article 118 of the Constitution of 1913, then in force, provided that for the trial of accused persons under 17 years of age the district courts of the parishes outside of Orleans parish should sit as juvenile courts, and should proceed according to the forms prescribed for those courts.

As the said article originally stood in the Constitution, it did not so require. Itb section 5 removed the courts of the parishes other than Orleans from its operation. But by an amendment to the Constitution adopted at an election held under the provisions of the joint resolution embodied in Act 13 of 1916, published at page 14 of the publication entitled “Amendments to the Constitution, 1916,” said section 5 was repealed. By another amendment adopted at an election held under the provisions of the joint resolution embodied in Act 201 of 1918, published at page 13 of' appendix to Acts of 1920, a section 5 was added to said article, reading:

“Sec. 5. That the provisions herein relating to the jurisdiction and powers of juvenile courts shall not be exclusive, and the General Assembly may pass laws enlarging or regulating the jurisdiction and powers of such courts and providing for the trial of juveniles and adults by such courts, and regulating the procedure in such trials.”

No suggestion is made that the Legislature has as yet exercised these enlarged powers.

Whether, if the trial court had considered the question of the juvenility of the accused and found him to be 17 years of age or over, this court would have reviewed that decision by habeas' corpus, is a question which does not arise in the case, since no issue, is made in that connection.

The sentence against Erwin Louis is therefore decreed to be null, and he is directed to be held a prisoner subject to the orders of the district court of the parish of Iberville, sitting ag a juvenile court.

On Application for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

By the decree in this case the prisoner is directed to be delivered to the proper juvenile court official of the parish of Iberville; but no provision is made for the contingency of the said official not applying for the delivery of the prisoner. It is' now ordered that in the event of such application not being made within 10 days from this date, November 27, 1922, the said prisoner be liberated.

- And it is further ordered that the clerk of this court mail to the warden of the state penitentiary and to the juvenile court officials of the parish of Iberville certified copies of the present order.  