
    No. 1357.
    Louis Desmarais vs. Board of Police of Opelousas et als.
    On proper showing an appellant will ho allowed to perfect a transcript o£ appeal, even alter the argument has been gone into.
    The case presents the same issues as those determined in 41 An. 697.
    APPEAL from First Justice of the Peace, First Ward, Parish of St. Landry. Brooks, J.
    
    
      Kennett Baillio for Plaintiff and Appellee:
    Motion to Dissiiss.
    1. A certificate which does not certify that the transcript includes all the proceedings, evidence, and testimony is defective. 10 M. 670 ; 8 L. 295, 446, 454 ; 2 N. S. 67; 7 L. 337; 14 L. 265; 171.. 27; 1 All. ISO; 3 All. 592; UAn.644; 4 An. 487; 10 An. 180; 11 An. 604; 12 An. 082.
    2. AVhoro the appeal from the judgment oí a magistrate is not taken in tlie presence. of the pariie», and no prayer is made for citation of appellee, and he is not cited, the appeal will be dismissed. C. I*. 10 L. 214; 16 L. 50; 0 An. 110; 10 An. fi.AO.
    3. A party is not a competent surety on an appeal bond given by him in a representative capacity. 2 X. ¡4. 572; 2 K. 449.
    ON Tim MEMTS.
    4. AYhero a special tax is levied under Article 209, Constitution of 1879, the ordinance must not precede but must follow the vote. Art. 209.
    5. Municipal corporations can only tax in such manner as the Legislature has seen proper to permit. 33 An. 1179.
    6. The Police Juries of the several parishes are hound to provide suitable court houses for the courts. R. S. 2746.
    7. Municipal corporations can only tax for municipal purposes. Art. 202, Constitution of 1879.
    8. Special taxes for improvements under Article 242, Constitution of 1879 can not exceed 5 mills por annum. Art. 242, Constitution of 1879.
    9. Ordinary taxation for parochial purposes can not exceed 10 mills per annum. Art. 209.
    10. No estoppel can exist when there Is error.
    
      W. 8. Frazee for Defendants and Appellants.
   On Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bermudez, O. J.

The plaintiff and appellee charges that the appellant having, in May, 1889, obtained and perfected an appeal returnable to this court at its July term following at Opelousas, and having failed to file the transcript seasonably, has abandoned the same, and that the transcript having been filed at the present July term, 1890, the case must be stricken from the docket, and he moves accordingly.

On the other hand, the defendant and appellant answers the charge, saying that the motion, order and bond to which reference is made, and which are in the transcript, apparently substantiate the charge; that the truth is that the same were inserted in the transcript in error by tbe justice who prepared and certified to its entire correctness, but who failed to copy in place the proper petition and order filed by the defendant in March, 1890, and the bond furnished on the same day, within twelve months from the signature of the judgment. Counsel for appellant makes oath that the.appellant discovered the alleged error since the motion was filed, and that it occurred by no fault of the appellant. Prayer was accordingly made for authority to supplement the transcript so as to correct the error thus committed.

The motion to dismiss and the prayer to supplement having been filed, the former on the day of trial and the latter as soon as the revelation had .been made, but within the three judicial days following the opening of the term of the court at this place, and the certificate attached to the transcript being full and such as the appellant could have taken as truthful, the appellant was permitted to take steps to perfect the transcript. 89 An. 781.

He has done so by providing a certified copy of the proper petition of appeal and order thereon, as well as of the bond furnished, all filed fully within the twelve months following the judgment. (O. P. 1138.)

The deficiency charged was therefore corrected.

The other objections, urged by the appellee since the transcript was thus completed, have no merit.

The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.

On the Merits.

This suit presents issues similar to those in the case of Andrus vs. Board, 41 An. 697.

For the reasons there assigned, it is ordered and decreed that the judgment appealed from be annulled, avoided and reversed, and it is now decreed that there be judgment in favor of the defendant, dissolving the injunction and rejecting plaintiff’s demand at his cost in both courts.  