On the Merits.

The defendant was summoned to work on the public roads of St. Martin parish, and having refused, incurred a fine of one dollar for each day that he failed to obey the summons. The overseer of the road sued him for four dollars, the fines for as many days of delinquency.

The defendant pleaded a general denial, and the “ unconstitutionality of the tax levied upon him,” and there was judgment in his favor. The justice has furnished written reasons for judgment, which begin by properly reciting that the action is for the recovery of four dollars forfeiture or fines for having refused to work on the roads, but conclude by ruling that the ordinance of the police jury, imposing the fines, levies a' direct tax upon the people, and is therefore unconstitutional.

The justice is in error. Police juries are authorized to pass all ordinances relative to roads, and to impose such fines and penalties to enforce them as they may think proper, and these fines may be enforced by ordinary process in the name of the police jury. Eev. Stats, see 3364

The police jury of St. Martin passed an ordinance requiring persons between certain ages to work on the public roads, and imposed a fine of one dollar for each day of failure to work when required. The defendant incurred the penalty denounced by the ordinance, after having been duly summoned, and he must pay for his dereliction of public duty.

One of the surest tests of the civilization of a country is the condition of its public roads. Tears ago, at the termination of that period when able-bodied men were needed elsewhere than at home, there was good excuse for impassable roads, but there is no good reason now why those who are liable to road duty should not be made to contribute a part of their time and labor to relieving the country from the reproach of *1094having highways which are a danger to the traveller, and an obstruction to those who have to transport produce over them.

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the Justice of the Peace is avoided and reversed, and it is further decreed that there be judgment in favor of the parish of St. Martin against the defendant Pelletier Delahoussaye for four dollars, and all costs of the lower court, and of this appeal.

On Motion to Dismiss.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

The appellee moves to dismiss for the reason, “that there is no statement of facts to be found in the rhcord of the testimony adduced at the trial, and shewn to have been offered, nor any assignment of error, nor any bill of exception,” and for the further reason that the certificate of the Justice of tho Peace does not state that the record contains all the testimony adduced.

The first ground stated would be unintelligible, but for our being able to divine its meaning from having seen the same phraseology in many of the transcripts filed here. The ground is, that there is no statement of facts of the testimony. This is a solecism. The only occasions when a statement of facts has a place in a record is when none of the testimony is in it. If the testimony is taken down in writing, (and that practice obtains universally in our courts now), it may and does serve in the stead of a statement of facts. Code of Practice, art. 601.

If the testimony has not been taken down in writing, then and then, only, the parties or their advocates must jointly draw a statement of the facts proved, and if they can not or will not do it, the judge must make the statement. Mem, arts. 602-3.

There are four modes by which this Court can review a case on appeal. 1. When the testimony has been reduced to writing, and is contained in tho record. 2. In the absence of the testimony, when a statement of facts has been made by the parties, or their counsel, or by the judge. 3. When there is a written exception to the opinion of the judge. 4 When a special verdict has been rendered. Idem, art. 896.

Most of the transcripts filed here call the note of evidence, ‘statement of facts’. How such a misnomer was ever made may serve for the speculation of the curious, but it is -apparent that tho mover here has *1093made the same mistake, and that he means' to say by way of objection that there is no note of the evidence that was introduced to be found in the record.

The appeal is from a Justice’s court. There is no provision for taking down the testimony in writing in a justice’s court. He has no clerk; and the pleadings are oral. " The parties there, as in the higher courts, can agree upon a statement of facts, and it is their duty to do so. The justice is required to transmit the statement of facts thus agreed on to the appellate court. Idem, art. 1135.

We are satisfied none was made or agreed on in this instance, because the face of the papers sufficiently present the issue.

The motion is denied.