
    FAGOT VS. GRADERIGO.
    APPEAL FRO-M THE COURT OF THE FIFTH DISTRICT', TIIE’TíjDGE OF THE SEVENTH PRESIDING. ■
    Western Dist.
    September, 1831.
    An authority eónferred on an inspector of cattle by,the,police jury of St. Martin, to inspect “ all dioves intended to be’ taken out of the parish of St. Martin, to be sold on the Mississippi, does not authorise the inspector to demand fees of drovers passing through St. Martin from other parishes. The police jury have power only to pass laws and ordinances, and make regulations relative to the property which is ow,ned arid limited to their respective parishes, or brought there for deposite or sale!
    The circumstance of property passing through their jurisdictional limits, does not authorise them to stop it for inspection; or any-óther purpose.
    The police jury of the parish of St. Martin, on the 15th of August, 1827, passed, an inspection law," requiring a tax of six cents, to be paid to the inspector, on each head of cattle,” &c. “intended to be taken out of the parish of St.' Maritn, to be sold on the Mississippi,” &c. An inspector of droves of cattle, &c. to be appointed annually. . ' > y
    Under this authority the plaintiff was appointed. The defendant resides in the parish of St. Landry;,but,’in driving his cattle to market, has to pass through the parish of St. Martin. The plaintiff demands inspection fees on one thousand seven hundred and seventy-one head of cattle which he alleges passed through the place designated, in the parish of St. Martin, for the inspection of cattle, &c. from the 27th of August, 1828, to 24th of December, 1829, belonging to the defendant.
    
      The defendant denied the right of the plaintiff to demand fees for cattle driven to market from the parish' of St. Landry, or from any other parish than St. Martin. The cause was hied in the district court, where the constitutional and legal right of the police jury of St. Martin to make such laws, and of the inspector to enforce them, were directly called in question. The defendant had judgment in his favor.
    
      Simon and Brownson for the plaintiff.
    1. The regulations of the police jury of St. Martin, were adopted in pursuance of authority given by the legislature in the act of 1825. Moreau's Digest, vol. 2, p. 250,
    2. Inspection laws are not unconstitutional. The state lias several inspection laws, particularly for the city of New- Orleans. Constitution U. S. § 10.
    
      Garland for the defendant.
    The police jury of St. Martin have no legal or constitutional right to pass any such law or ordinance' as the one under Which the plaintiff claims inspection fees of the defendant. Their duties are defined by law, and neither the constitution of the-'United States or of this state will permit the passage of such ordinances as the one under consideration. 2 Moreau's Digest, 241, § 5, Ibid 250, § 3.
   Porter, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The police jury of the parish of St, Martin passed an ordinance respecting droves of cattle driven out of said parish, to be sold on the Mississippi and in New-Orleans. By this ordinance, all animals so driven were made subject to inspection ; and a register was directed to be kept of their marks, by the inspector appointed under the power -of said jury. This inspector was authorised to demand from the owners of the cattle, six cents for each head inspected, and heavy fines and penalties were imposed for any contravention of these regulations.

The defendant, who is an inhabitant of the parish of St. Landry, conducted a drove of beeves from that parish to New-Orleans through the parish of St. Martin; and, in passing through, they were inspected, and having refused to pay the inspector the fees given by the regulations referred to, this action was brought to recover them.

There was judgment, in the court of the first instance, for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

The question has been argued as well on the right of the police jury to pass a regulation of this kind, as on the authority of the legislature to confer a power of such a description. It -has been said they could not constitutionally exercise it themselves, and, therefore, could not confer it on others.

We have not found it necessary to inquire into the constitutionality of such a. regulation. The case can be settled without touching on that ground.

In the first place, we see nothing in the police regulation itsel-f which authorises an inspection of droves from any other place than the parish of St. Martin. The only, part of it which speaks of the power of the officer to be appointed, or the things on which he is to exercise the duty imposed on him, is the following clause: “That an annual nomination will be made by the police jury,’5, &c. “ of an inspector of droves intended to be taken out of the parish of St. Martin, to be sold on the Mississippi or at New-Orleans.” No other provision in the regulation or ordinance extends these words, and we are at a loss to conceive how it came to be understood that taking' a drove -of cattle out of the parish of St. Landry, to conduct them to New-Orleans, was a tatting out of the parish of St. Martin, because they passed through it. Things taken from one place to another, can with no propriety be said to bo taken from every place through which they pass.

The case might well be disposed of on this ground ; but as we suppose it was brought before us to obtain an opinion on the right of the jury to make such a regulation as their inspector. contends they have made, we have thought it proper to express that opinion. We do this the more readily, as the question is of some importance to the public, and we have no doubt about it.

We think it very clear the police jury did not possess. authority to make such a regulation. We are of opinion that a power of so extensive a kind which is liable to great abuse, and which might produce such disagreeable collisions between the different parishes in the state, should he shown to be expressly given. We have looked into the different statutes conferring authority on bodies of this kind, and we cannot find any thing to sanction it. The power given to them, we think, is clearly limited to the property which is owned within their own parish, or brought there for the purposes of deposite or sale, or for any other object. The mere circumstance of its passing through the jurisdictional limits of the police jury, does not, in our opinion, confer on them the authority to stop it for inspection or for any other purpose. Such a power is inconsistent with the right of the citizen to convey himself or his property on the public highways, from one part of the state to the other, without let or hindrance: a right which can only be controlled or regulated by the legislature itself, or, perhaps, by those to whom they expressly delegate the power.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.  