The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-02-14
THE GREAT LOTTERY CASE.
Louisiana Lottery Company VS.. Alabama
Mutual Aid Association, Dave c.
Johnston, ct ais.
DECISION or JUDGE LEAUxoNr.

L
| Alabama Mutual Aid Association, Dave G. John.
ston OF ais.
On account Of an order Of Injunction issued by
the Sixth District Court for the parish OF Orleans
which 10 contrary to the orders OF this court before
which the matter = pending brief history of the
facts OF this case becomes necessary.
The petition OF the plaintiff In this case,
addressed TO this court the ID Of January, 1862
respectfully represents In substance that by virtue
Of an act Of the Legislature Of August l7th 1868,
entitled IAN act TO increase the revenues Of the
State, to authorize the incorporation and estsb.
lshment OF the Louisiana State Lottery Company,
and to repeal certain acts now In force" and hsv
ing complied with ell the necessary prerequisites,
1t has been and Is an Incorporated body bear.
ing the above name, and Ia granted for and during
the space Of twenty five years to begin from the
LIST OF January, 1869, the sole and ercsipe privi-
lege Of establishing lottery or series of lotteries,
and selling and disposng Of lottery tickets, etc.
Said sct further provides penalty of not more
than five nor less than one thousand dollars for
any person or persons who shall after the LIST Of
January, 1859, infringe upon or violate the sole
and exclusive rights Of the above corporation by
selling or offering to sell any lottery tickets, etc.,
except those of the above corporation.
The petition further reprsssnt, that the Ala.
laws OF Alabama and domicilisted In that State,
| but represented In this State by one Dave G.
Johnston, as principal agent and other persons ss
subsgents, has In violation Of the abovensmsd
act, and by direct and Illegal Infringement upon
| the rights Of plaintiff sold lottery tickets other
than those Of petitioner In this case and Will pro-
coed to SELL unless restrained by writ of njunc-
ton. That petition having been duly sworn 70 by
| Chss. T. Howard, president Of the above-named
| cooperation, and proper bond given. this court
1 on that very day issued writ Of Injunction pro-
hibiting said Dave G. Johnston and bis sub.sgents
from selling or offering to sell lottery tickets Of
| any kind except those Of petitioner.
| On the 7th day Of January, 1869, plaintiff fled
another petition which this court considers 10 be
an original petition from the fact that this court
! required new bond, and granted new order Of
injunction. That petition may be considered As
an Incidental one, because its fate depends upon
that Of the original one. II the original one be
| dismissed, the second one will be dismissed il
the first one hold good. the second one must hold
| good, too. ...
| That second petition states In substance that
the plaintiff Is afraid that the Defendants agents
| and sub agents. without shadow of right under
the act OF August 18th, 1868, or under any pre-.
vious existing laws (for they were all repealed by
this law), would apply to another district court
for the parish OF Orleans BY suit for legal process
in order TO vex, annoy, hsrass. ipjure your petit
toner and stop the Legitimate business OF plain
tit and temporarily, at least, deprive him Of the
rights acquired under and given him exclusively
BY this act and that In order to protect his just
rights further order Of injunction became sbso-
| lutely necessary. Another bond having been
given and the petition being duly sworn to- this
court issued smother writ Of Injunction preventing
and forbidding the defendant, his agents and sub.
agents from bringing any suit for the purpose of
| obtaining any process by which the rights OF
the plaintiff In this case might be in any
way or in the slightest degree impaired,
| destroyed or suspended, before any other
district court for the parish OF Orleans. II was an
order that this court had right TO ISSUE did issue
and shall again issue the facts OF the case war
rant such order for the protection Of any party
that will trust his rights TO this courts for, though
that writ of Injunction be and Is incidental to the
main one, yet, In the scope OF Its action IL was an
original one, In this, that II prevented the defend.
4 ~4rae zkArx mad fEnr dntn q
thing that he Was not prevented from doing 10 the
| mind Of any one, II the articles OF the Code OF
| Practice, relative TO injunctions, mean anything,
| or have any force Of law that this court had an
unQuestionable right to Issue that order OF
ton whether Il legally illegally issued, is
question which this court alone, in its original
Jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court, in its appel
late Jurisdiction, have right TO determine:
No other district court for the parish OF Orleans
can with any dignity TO itself, with any respect
| 10 the court which has issued that order, decide
| such question. unless 1t trsmples under foot the
sacred and elementary principles OF law and stir
up the arbitrary will Of It's Judge against the settled
doctrines OF the law and the unquestionable re-
spect due 10 judicial ORDERS for, se well said by
French suthor-even II applicable to this court, 10
the opinion Of another Judge, Fun msgistrat ig,
norsnt c'est Ia role qu'on salue'-(of an Ignorant
Judge tits 10 the insignia Of office that We bowl
| A third petition, bearing date January 18th
1869, was filed by plaintiff In this case, sllegine
that Notwithstanding the two orders already issued
1
the attorney general, in the name OF the State Of
Louisiana, would proceed to bring suit and teke
out legal process from another court TO annoy
hsrsss and irjure plaintiff In bis business AND sns
pend his rights under the act of 18th August, 1858
by the unavoidable delays Of the law, though the
plaintiff In this case, had complied with all snC
| singular she requirements of the charter moor
porating IL under the name and style OF the Loutsi
| ana State Lottery Company, and prayed this
court BY such order az IL deemed proper TO pro-
| tact IL from ali further injury.
| That petition being duly sworn 20 and new
| bond given, the court issued another order o
Injunction prohibiting the attorney general o
anybody else, IN behalf or In the name Of thu
State of Louisisus. from bringing before any othe
court of this parish any suit to obtain legal process
| by which this plaintiffs right might In the slight
est degree be injured, except before this court
| and empowered and ordered the plsintf In thi
case, upon the legal presumption (onntd presun,i
fur recfd esse acd that an act of the Legislature
| duly authenticated, must be presumed to be con
sttutions and TO have its full eect until declared
| void or unconstitutional by competent trinqnsl,
/ 10 act ss specified and prayed for IN ms oriems
l and suppemental or incidental petitions In selling
LOTTERY tickets any order OF any district court 10
the parish Of Orleans 30 the contrary notwith
And on the 9Oth day of January, 1869, on motion
| of counsel for plaintiff and upon suggesting 20 IN
| court that the defendant, ID. q. Johnston mad 90
| tanned an order Of Injunction from the Sixth DIS
trict Court, and thereby violated the order OF thi
| court, and In further protection OF the rights 0
nlsjntiff the court ordered the sheriff Of this par
sh 10 see that the plaintiff in this case be not dis
turbed or molested In any Of his rights under TIL
act, even II there should be an order OF snotne
court 20 that effect. On the 9Th January 1869, IN
oounse for defendants In this case appeared befor
| this court and TOOK rule TO qussh the inJunct1o
issued on the I'd of January, under Art. 30I OF IN
| Code of Practice, by giving bond. This the oo1r
refused to do, for the obvious reasons that for 10
purposes Of that rule the act must be presume
} Constitutional, and ss such IL conceded the fac
that the plaintiff had the sole and exclusive rgh
| Of selling lottery tickets. Now, sparing tins
| right for the purpose of that rule, ss very we
| said by the Supreme Court in the case Of Knob
vs.. Ternott, IA A. R., they were entitled 70 "a
, | continued aud uninterrupted mot even for 80
| Tooth part of q second) enjoyment OF that righ
ana the depriving the plaintiff of that right for "a
, | smallest period OF time imaginable would WORK
: irreparsbe ipjury-tbst is an injury which D
money could compensate.
Q ON the 18th and on the 30th Of January, lS6
the counsel for defendants took two rules, bot
. | contsipng the same grounds, TO qussh the FIR
u two ipiunctions Issued In this case on the I'd ar
| 7th of January, 1859. upon the following ground
J. and that Is the matter which This court Is Gale
8 | upon to decide:
|, That said injunction here issued on account OF