
    The State, on the relation of F. Vienne, v. S. M. Hyams.
    
    The Act of 18£6, prescribes the mode of proceeding in contesting the election of a Sheriff. The Supreme Court is not the proper tribunal to entertain such a contest, and cannot go behind the commission to examine the proof upon which the governor acted in issuing it.
    APPEAL from the District Court of Natchitoches, GhwpUn, J.
    
      W. J. Hamilton, for plaintiff and appellant.
    
      
       This case was taken to New Orleans, with .the supposed consent of the parties. An opinion was prepared by Mr. Justice Buchanan, and concurred in by all the Judges, but no written consent of parties being found in the record, it was not read. That opinion is now adopted and read as the •opinion of the court.
    
   Buchanan, J.

Mandamus from the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, holding sessions in the parish of Natchitoches, sued out by a party who alleges that he was elected Sheriff of the parish of Natchitoches, in November, 1853, and commissioned by the Governor as such, against a person who detains the keys of the prison of said parish, of which by law the Sheriff is keeper.

The respondent denies that relator was legally elected' and commissioned as Sheriff of the parish of Natchitoches. He alleges that he himself was a candidate for said office, hut does not allege that 7ie"tvas elected. He' claims simply to hold over, in virtue of a former commission, until a Sheriff be legally appointed.

The appeal turns altogether'upon a bill of' exceptions to the refusal of the District Court, to receive evidence of the returns of election, upon' which the Governor issued the commission to the relator.

The ruling of the court below was correct. The Act of 1846, p. 116, prescribed the mode of contesting this election of Sheriff, which the' parties a was held in November, 1853.

The record shows that in January, 1854, the Governor issued a commision to the' relator, as having been elected Sheriff; and the respondent does not pretend that he or any other person has contested the election. Had he done so the matter would, under the law, have been submitted to' a jury in the District Court. The Supreme Court is not the tribunal to entertain such a test, nor is' this the proper form of proceeding.

We are unanimous in the opinion, that we cannot go behind the commission to examine the proof upon which the Governor' acted in issuing the relator’s commissioh and to reverse'his decision.

It is, therefore, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court he affirmed; and that the appellant, Samuel M. Hyams, pay costs in both courts.  