
    No. 8487.
    State of Louisiana ex rel. Attorney General et al. vs. The Judge of the Twenty-sixth Judicial District, et al.
    This application being for a writ of prohibition only, no other question than that of jurisdiction of the Court, or competency of the Judge, can be raised.
    As no plea to the jurisdiction appears in the pleadiogs, or was passed upon by the lower court, there is nothing before this Court to determine.
    APPLICATION for Writ of Prohibition. Michael Halm, Judge, Respondent.
    
      Olivier 0. Provostg, for Relators.
    
      Gervais Leche,' District Attorney, James P.' Augustin, Alfred Shaw, for Respondent.
   The opinion of the Court ivas delivered by

Fenner, J.

This application, being for a writ of prohibition merely, can raise no other question than that of jurisdiction of the Court or competency of the Judge. C. P. Arts. 845 to 854.

Questions of regularity of proceedings are presented by' writ of certiorari. C. P. Art. 855, et seq.

We have nothing to do, then, with any question except the jurisdiction of the inferior court over the cause, without reference to the particular proceedings taken therein.

The present application is disposed of by the fact that no plea to its jurisdiction has been filed in, or passed upon, by the lower court. State ex rel. Larricux vs. Judge, 29 A. 806.

The prohibition prayed for is refused, and the rule discharged at Relators’ cost.

Poché, J., recused, being related to one of the Relators.  