131 So. 2d 43 | La. | 1961
When this case was previously before us on defendant’s appeal from his conviction and sentence for violating the state gambling statute we dismissed the appeal for the reason that the record as made up reflected this court’s lack of jurisdiction.
During the course of the trial three Bills of Exceptions were reserved to the ruling
The first bill is clearly without merit in the light of the express provision of Act 422 of 1956,
While this court is without appellate jurisdiction to review questions of fact, nevertheless, when as here the exceptions are based on the contention that there is a total lack of evidence to support the conviction the issue becomes one of law reviewable on appeal.
For the reasons assigned the writ heretofore granted is hereby recalled.
. The sentence imposed, as reported in the record, condemned the defendant to “serve fifteen (15) days in the parish jail and pay a fine of three hundred ($300.00) Dollars and in case the defendant should fail to pay the Three Hundred ($300.00) fine to serve an additional six (6) months in the parish jail.” See State of Louisiana v. Kelly, 240 La. 923, 125 So.2d 412, and authorities therein cited.
. According to the corrected record, the fine actually imposed $350.00, and consequently this court had appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Louisiana. Constitution Art. 7, Sec. 10.
.The cited act, in force at the time of trial, amended and re-enacted Section 1870 of Title 13, Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950. Although Act 326 of 1956 •was held in State ex rel. Saint v. Toups, La.App., 95 So.2d 55, to be the special act ccvormg the same subject matter, inasmuch as the quoted provision is not in conflict with any provision of that act, Act 422, being a later expression of the legislative will, controls on this issue. The preceding acts, formerly R.S. 13:-1870 through 13:2483.17 were repealed by Act 32 of 1960, and now sections R.S. 13:1871 through 13:2162 were enacted and substituted therefor. The pertinent por.ti.on of the supplanting act, now R.S. 13:1884, is essentially the same as the previous act, providing: “Where the population of the territorial jurisdiction of the court is 10,000 or less, the judge shall be his own clerk.”
. State v. Holder, 1925, 159 La. 82, 105 So. 232; State v. McDonell, 1945, 208 La. 602, 23 So.2d 230 and authorities therein cited; State v. Heiman, 1955, 227 La. 235, 79 So.2d 78.
. State v. LeBleau, 1943, 203 La. 337, 14 So.2d 17, and authorities therein cited; State v. Honeycutt, 1950, 218 La. 362, 49 So.2d 610; State v. Brown, 1959, 236 La. 562, 108 So.2d 233.