New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-05
THE COURTs.

THE C0URTs.
The Bank OF Losisaana Case On the Writ
Of Error.
In this case Judge Bradley rendered
long decision yesterday, expoundfng
| the law regulating writs of errors and ap-
peals, and ruling that the appeal taken from
the proceedings in bankruptcy in this case
had been properly taken, and that its effect
would be to suspend oil proceedings which
had been commenced in the Circuit and
District Courts.
Tho Slaughter House Inlunctions.
The petitions which were filed in the
Eighth District Court on Friday, restraining
the Board of Metropolitan Police, the Mayor
and the Administrator of Commerce from
landing, keeping, slaughtering or Offering
Tor sale any cattle, etc., save that landed at,
inspected and slaughtered at the slaughter
house OF the Crescent City Live Stock Land
ing Company, was drawn up by Joseph P.
Horn0r, of counsel for company, and sworn
to by F. j. Pratt, President. Tho security
upon the bond. which was fixed at $4,000,
was given by Mr.. C. A. Weed.
The petition, after alleging the creation of
the company under the act of the Legisla-
ture with the exclusive privileges conferred,
and the establishment of the company in
compliance with the law, appointment of
inspectors, ETC., goes on to cite that nOtwith-
standing the provisions of said act, and in
direct violation of the same, sundry ill-ad-
vised and ill-disposed persons have erected
stock landing and s!aughterhouses within
Bernard. and have continued to
carry on therein the live stock
landing and slaugbterhouse business,
since July l. 1869, in defiance of
the provisions of said act, and of the rights
and privileges of petitioner, and have Of
fered the meat for sale in the parishes named,
and are doing so daily, in direct, open and
fragrant violation of the provisions of said
act and the rights of petitioner, and to the
New Orleans, which said act is designed to
protect, and that by such illegal acts peti.
toner is damaged to an extent greatly ex-
ceeding 500, 900 per annum and the people
OF New Orleans are damaged to an extent
inappreciable in money.
That the Board of Metropolitan Police is
charged to preserve the peace, cleanliness
and health Of the city, and that it is bound
by law to perform said duties in enforcing
the laws of the State, and particularly the
act in question, but that since the act went
into effect the said board has neglected to
enforce said law, and has allowed sundry
and divers ill-advlsed and ill.disposed
people, and still allows them to slaughter |
and expose meat for sale without the same
having been inspected as required by the |
said act No. 1lS, greatly to the damage of
petitioner and to the detriment of the health |
Of the city OF New Orleans, and in direct |
Of said act. That it is their duty |
to enforce said act; and that by law the |
city OF New Orleans, and s. G. Emley, Ad- |
ministrator of Commerce, have the charge |
Of the police and the markets of said CITY, |
and that it is their duty to carry out and en-
orce said act of the State, which they have |
allied and now fail to do.
That by the neglect of the city, of the |
board and of the said Administrators, petit
toners have suffered irreparable injury, and
nave already sustained damages greatly ex-
seeding 500 900. and that writ of injunc-
ion Is necessary to compel performance of
luty on the part of the city. board and
Administrators, and to protect the rights
md privileges of petitioners.
The following is the order issued in the
Injunction directed to the Administrator of
he Metropolitan Police:
tate of Louisians-Eighth District Court for the
Board of Metropolitan Police. New Orleans
greeting:
You are hereby commanded and enioined,
n the name of the State of Louisiana and of
he Eighth District Court for the parish of
orleans. to prevent anv and all persons Tex.
ept plaintiffs herein) from landing, keeping
r slaughtering any cattle, heeves, calves,
heep, swine or other animals, and from
aving, keeping or establishing any stock
anding, yards, pens, slaughterhouses or
bdttoarS at any point or place within the city
New Orleans, or the parishes of Orleans.
efferson, or st. Bernard, and to prevent and
rohiblt any and all persons from selling or
ffering for sale in the city of New Orleans
ny animal meat, for human food, not
laughtered and inspected at the slaughter
ouses of petitioners, plaintiffs herein, &C
ording to law, and you are commanded and
pjoined to use all the powers conferred
pom you by law to carry into effect this in
motion, and you are so epioined until the |
lrther order of this honorable court.
Witness the Honorable Henry c. Dibbie,
Judge of our said court, this third day of
une, in the year of our Lord one thousand
ght hundred and seventy, and in the
ety-tourth year of the independence of {
10 United States. J. CORPREW,
Deputy Clerk.
Eighth District Court.
The following cases, in which the {
aughterhouse Company is plaintiff, have
zen transferred from the Fifth District
ourt to the Eighth District Court:
Crescent City Slaughterhouse Company
j. Butchers Benev olent Association, and
so against B. Carambat ct al, Dominique 8
irgas. T. Hayern, Philip Bennett, Richard '
ebatt, John c. Caverie, Abraham Jacobs, g
'seph Hay, s. Firmberg, Freeman Moran, c
Ominique Matthes, Fred. Soule, Ramona 8
elord, Henry Buderer, J. NJ Mailhe, V. 6
,stelin, John Wilson g. Co., and B. Dastil-
a, I
The Warner Divorce Case. Z
In the Eighth District Court, yesterday,
me up the case of B. r. Warner, sueing =
8 wife, Mary Ann Hinckly, for divorce '
le matter occupied the attention of Judge q
'oley, sitting in the place of Judge Dibble, !
ring the entire day. The case was con.
1ded at about six o'clock. The case pre-.
nts many interesting legal questions, all
which were ably and eloquently argued :
; Mr.. F. B. Earhart, one of our most .
omising young members of the bar. His .
Ort was highly commended by those who !,
tened to it, and it evidently made strong
preston on the mind of the Judge.
xth District Court-Damaxe Suit for 8
Three Hundred and Twenty-Five a
Thousand Dollars.
G. j. Johnson VS.. j. J. McComb.-In this
Sc plaintiff claims that the defendant, who 6
sides in England, and is represented in q
is city by his agent, Henry T. Bartlett, q
ade contract with petitioner to promote
e sale in the United States of petitioners b
ton tie, known as the Buckle Tie,r or c
yeti patent; to advertise the same equally, II
prominently and thoroughly as the rival s.
claimed by himself, and known as the a
arrow Tie" to keep the American market
lily supplied with the "Buckle or SWEET | i