
    The State of Louisiana, (Hubert Gerard, Relator,) v. Adam Giffin, Treasurer, and Thomas Théard, Comptroller of the City of New Orleans.
    The provisions contained in Articles 896 and 897 of the Code of Practice, relative to the assignment of errors on appeal to the Supreme Court, aro not applicable whero the record is certified to contain all the testimony adduced on the trial.
    The Act of the Legislature entitled “An Act relative to elections in the parish of Orleans,” approved March 19th, 1867, is free from all constitutional objections.
    APPEAL from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Duvigneaud, J.
    
      J. A. Rozier, for plaintiff.
    
      A. J. Villeré, for defendant and appellant.
   On a motion to dismiss :

Cole, J.

A motion has been made to dismiss this appeal upon two grounds.

1. That ten days have elapsed since the filing of the transcript by the appellants, and no assignment of errors has been filed by them.

2. That the appellants rely entirely on an alleged error of law, appearing on the face of the record, and not wholly or in part on a statement of facts, an exception to the Judge’s opinion, or special verdict, to sustain their appeal; and no written paper has been filed, alleging an error of law, and more than ten days have expired since the record has been brought up.

The provisions contained in the Articles 896 and 897 of the Code of Practice are not applicable, where the copy of the record brought up is duly certified by the Clerk of the lower court, as containing all the testimony adduced.

Art. 896 expressly limits its provisions and those of Art. 897 in this manner.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the motion to dismiss be overruled, and that the mover pay the costs thereof.

'Voorhies, J., absent.

On the merits;

Land, J.

The object of this suit is the recovery of the sum of seven hundred and ninety dollars, the amount of certain expenses incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of the Act of the Legislature entitled “ An Act relative to elections in the parish of Orleans,” approved March 19th, 1857.

The ground of defence to the action is, that the Act of the Legislature above mentioned is unconstitutional, null- and void.

In the suit of the State of Louisiana v. The City of New Orleans, recently decided by us, we held that the Act in question was free from all constitutional objections.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the lower court, ordering a peremptory mandamus to issue, commanding the defendants, Adam Giffin, Treasurer, and Thomas Théard, Comptroller of the city of New Orleans, to pay 'to the relator, Hubert Gerard, the sum of seven hundred and ninety dollars, and costs of suit, be affirmed, with the costs of this appeal,

Merrick, C. J., and Buchanan, J., dissent in this case, for the reasons assigned in the case of the State against the City, recently decided.  