101 So. 1 | La. | 1924
By the WHOLE COURT.
I think the writ should be refused.
The question of the territorial limits of the parish of Orleans is “probably a question of law,” but the question of the place where (i. e., the spot at which) the alleged offense is charged to have been committed is “undoubtedly a question of fact, * * * into which we cannot inquire.” State v. Foster, 8 La. Ann. 290, 292, 58 Am. Dec. 678. See also: Macarty’s Case, 2 Mart. (O. S.) 277, 278; State v. Tanner, 38 La. Ann. 307; State v. Nettles, 41 La. Ann. 323, 6 South. 562; State v. Starks, 42 La. Ann. 316, 7 South. 540; State v. Clifford, 45 La. Ann. 983, 13 South. 281; State v. Thornton, 49 La. Ann. 1007, 22 South. 315; State v. Kline, 109 La. 603, 33 South. 618; State v. Jackson, 142 La. 540,
Relators’ remedy is by appeal in due course “on the law and on the facts’’ to the criminal district court for the parish of Orleans. Const. 1921, art. 7, § 83 (p. 62).
PER CURIAM. Writ refused.
