The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-04-06

tanned In the petition, and specially that the city
Of Baton Rosge has any title 70 the property In
ts own right they aver that II the city has any
TUE Il i }er he benefit Of and in trust for them
They alIege that they arc the true and lawful
ourers Of the property. the sale whereof has
been enjoinsd; and they pray that judgment may
be rendered quieting them 10 then ute and pos
session and dissolvins the Injunction with dam
The nature of the titles undsr which the par
lies respectively claim, i not stated in the plead
Prom the evidence and The brief In this csse, il
appears that the claim Of the city Of Baton
Ronge to the property Of these squares to public
uss By Eli Bssuregard, the ancestor Of the de-
Pendants who now claim to Be the owners Of the
In the beginning Of this century Ell Beeure-
gard wss In posssssion Of - plantation adjoining
the post Of Baton Rouge, on which now stands
the principal part Of the city Of Baton Rouge.
he laid o. part Of I'll; , rIsd 1 ~ ,S 0; css
city, and be published notice OF his Intentions
and plan. This must have been done anterior TO
the acquisition Of Louisiana BY the United States
o the map containing sites ZEN phase n'snsl for
the location Of "Governmsnt Palace I" Inten-
dance" and Kings Store" 80
The map In evidence ID admitted 10 be cor
rect and IN exact accordance with the plan de-
scribed IN Besureeard's Advertisement This map.
Is well a. the advertisement Of the plan OF the
city clearly shows that the squares In question
were intended 70 be dsdicated 10 public use.
On the map space ID designated - "Plasa dc
Mexico" and another space fronting on the river
vertissment Ell Bssursgsrd Gays: "J'a jouserai
settlement quelques applications relstif IN plan
diSsrsstss dimsuiioss.a II Pisss Dc Hssioo and
que pourrsient sire. par j; suite, orness dune fon
tame dams le miieu, auront $50 pisds de large
sur $40 de lopRueur, ct communiqueront / Ia
Grande Place par dss russ de traverse" Cousinsrd
testified that he had known Mexico square about
SO or 40 year, that II had never been held ~ pri
vate property and Was always considered ~ be.
longing to the city Of Baton Rouge during that
time. Government landing or Plaza de Colomb
10 at the foot OF Government street.
]. E. Elan testines that he has known Mexico
Square and Government Landing about twenty
five years; that neither Of those places have ever
been claimed or occupied a. private property
during that time. They were always considered
and treated a. public places. In 1858 Mexico
streets were laid of and trees we're planted on the
square. What Is now known 80 Government land.
ing is designated a. Plaza de Colomb on the plan
OF the city and the tradition relating to 1t Is that
1t was intended a. apublic landing.
Has there been dedication of the two squares
There il no particular form or ceremony neces.
ssry In the dedication OF land to public use. All
that is required is the assent OF the owner Of the
land. and the fact Of its being used for the public
purposes intended BY the appropriation" Peters,
l40; 3 Ann. 282. go -I..r
In this case an actual dedication has been
proved. fe-ae .. taafr
The consent of the owner ID contained in the
publication Of his plan Of the city, made at least
- early az 1903, in which he says: Here the
owner makes his statement 10 French-Reporter.l
The map Of the city represents the two squares
90 public places. The spaces occupied By them
are not divided into lots, and name 10 given to
each square-Plaza de Mexico and Plaza dc Co.
lomb. r..as al 81 .a.. $500. a..i
4, In the case Of Beatty vs.. Kurts. 2 Peters. $50;
the court held that there was dedication to
out upon the original plan Of On addition to
Georgetown "for the Southern Church." and had
been used a. place Of burial from the time Of
dedication.
n. cOurt. after arguing the case at consldsr.
able length decides as follows:
IL 10 therefore ordered. adjudged and dscreed
that the judgment of the District Court be avoided
and reversed, and that there be judgment In favor
of the city Of Baton Rouge, quietins 1t in its title
and possession to Mexico square and the Plaza do
Colomb and perpetuating the injunction issued In
this ease. Il 10 further ordered that the defend
ants pay the costs Of both courts.
By cHur susrIcn LUDsIre.
Nc. 1S4S-Stephen 8. Fish W. 7. W. Collins.
Appeal from the Fifth District Court Of New Or.
leans. E. Filleul for plaintiff and appellant. E.
Howard McCaleb and =. Bermudes for defendant
and appellee. ~
The petitioner alleges that he was candidate
for election TO the ONCE Of Judge OF the Seventh
District Court Of the parish OF Orleans on the 18th
and 18th days Of April, 1865, that the defendant
and Thoe. ]. Earhsrt were alss candidates for the
same Office and that the defendant clAims to have
been elected to said once. ~ s r..
Petitioner AYERS that defendant 10 and be was at
the date OF the election Ineligible to said Office.
The plaintiff further svsrs that he received the
largest number Of votes Of any candidate eligible
10 the ONCE. "a -
The prayer Of the petition Il that T. W. Collins
be declared Ineligible to the office, and that the
petitioner be declared duly elected judge Of the
The defendent filed exceptions embracing many
reasons why he alleges the suit should be dis
nissed.
1t will be necessary TO examine only one of the
grounds stated In the exceptions filed By dsfen-
1t Is that the petition states no cause of action.
We think the exception well taken, 6taes vs..
Gastinel, 20 Ann. ia, and 20 Ann. $50. f-F
The plaintiff does not allege that he received Q
larger number Of the votes cas-. ct the election
than either Of his competitors, but on the con.
trary, he admits that the defendant received Q
greater number Of votes than be did. The cleo
ton Of the plaintiff did not depend upon the
neligibility OF his competitors TO the ONCE, but
on the viii Of the majority or plurality OF the
legal voters Of the district expressed ct the bal.
lot box. II u unnecessary in this case 10 ex'
press any opinion - to whether the votes cast
for person who 10 notoriously known to be IN.
eligible, should be rejected or not, a. no such
slles ations are made In the petition.
1t b therefore ordered, adjudgsd and decreed
that the judgment Of the Dstrict Court be
affirmed, and that appellant pay the costs Of sp.
peal. .s-rgsr1 $50 -tlf'.-Ia
By CHIny JUSTICE ,. +. LUDsLrNG.
No. 2l6s-The State of Louisiana, ex rel, Felix
J. Leche 70. J. J. Kreider. Appeal from the SEQ.
ond Judicial District Court, parish Of Jefferson.
Lacy q Buflsr, Sheldon a r. King Cutler for re.
lstor and appellee. A. N. & Il. N. Ogden, Eel.
lows Mills and Cassbst Scott for defendant
and appellant.
The question 10 be decided ID whether this case
ID entitled BY Law to be tried by preference.
The petitioner moved that this case should be
fixed for trial BY preference on the grounds that
the proceeding was instituted for the purpose OF
testing the right Of the appellee 70 the Office OF
mayor Of the City Of Jefferson, and for the further
purpose Of being put into possession Of the para
phernala or personsl effects appertainng to thst
Office. and that the interest Of the City Of Jsfsr-
son requires that this cause should be tried BY
preference. -. ......, ,...-
An aildsvit purporting to be made by Felix ].
Leche, mayor Of the city Of Jefferson, is appended
to the motion.
10 this sfidavis conclusive, We think not II
10 the duty OF the court to examine the petition
and to judge from its prayer whether the case 10
49, -