New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-10

is used ID 27l G. P. but are of that class o
objects mentioned in article 272 G. p, which
declares that obligations and titles may
also be sequestered when their ownership Is
in dispute" and that the former may be
bonded By defendant under article 279, but
not the latter.
The court could not assent to this propo-
sltion. 1t said that III either case the con-
servatory effect of the suit is to compel the
possessor, If ne wishes to retain POSSESSION,
to give security in favor Of the claimant who
demands possession.
The right to al appeal has been settled
adversely to relator in the case of State vs..
Judge, Ia Louisiana 500, q decision which
the court said was founded upon sound rea-
son, and which has been uniformly adhered
to. Case Of Comstock VS.. Pale, ID Louis
lana 481, does not conflict with this view.
In closing the court says: In fact, ii the
plaintiffs III sequestraton were allowed to
take property from the defendant, and then
appeal suspensively from an order allowing
J the defendant 70 bond. the article Two hun.
dred aud fevcnty-nine would be nuillded.
! For reasons given the rue granted Was dis
missed with costs. Howe, J.
! State ex rel. j. II. wilson vs. Jujge Of
| Seventh District Court, parish OF Or cans
| Application for writ OF prohibition. Writ
granted, and made perpetual. Howell.
Judge. The questions presented in the
| above entitled case were TWO, viz l. Is the
| principal in an Injunction bond good and
| legal surety, II solvent, for his surely there
/ en- in an appeal bond, given By the latter
! when each has%s ken separate appeal fron,
| a judgment again7t them in soido, the said
principal having given other surety On his
| appeal bond? 2. Does the suspensive appeal
taken by the principal suspend TIE judg-
ment as to the surety who does not join IN
! said appeal? The court reviewed at length
the authorities cited in support of the mega
ton Of the first question by the judge quo,
IS A. CSC, and l. l.. 363. Upon the second
| point the court said that it is well under
stood that an appeal by the principal viii
not suspend the Judgment AS to the surety.
3. A. $40, A. 4l9, II A. 707, Is A. 435, 10
A. 291.
State ex rel. william Malady vs.. Judge
District Court parish of Orleans.-Applica-
tion By relator for writ of prohibition, COM
planning of the action of the court who
ruled him to show cause why he should not
pay his wife alimony pending proceedings
Instituted by her 10 obtain a separation from
bed ard board from him, and to compel
him to pay her attorneys fees for the prose-
cutiOn of her suit In this case, after q
Judgment in favor OF the wife in the lower
court, he appealed. Plaintiffs counsel an
nouuced to the court that she was in deo,i-
;ute circumstances and living upon her
friends and in feeble health, and the has-
band was ordered to show cause why he
should not pay her $3.50 a month aud the
sum Of $500 fer counsefs fees. Defendant
alleged that there being suspensive ap-
peal the lower court was without jurls-
diction to inquire into the matter set
forth in the RUE, and that. evenif possessed
OF Jurisdiction, defendant was not liable for
counsel's fees. The lower court sustained
the objection so far as it related to the 500
counsel fees, but overruled as to the claim
for alimony. The supreme Court said that
article l46 of the Civi Code provides that if
the wife has not q sufficient income for her
maintenance during the suit for separation
the judge shall allow her g sum for her cup.
port proportioDate 10 the means of her hu.-
band.
This right is incident TO the action for
paration from bed and boar2. 1t may or
may not arise.
Where il does arise no rule of practice re-
qulres that 1t shall be set up in the original
suit for separation. In this case it seems /.
was not done, but it WAS not passed upon by
the judgment appealed from, and is, there
fore, not subject matter over which the |
District Court lost jurisdiction by the appeal. |
Nj. p 2; 10 Rob. l52.
The VIE having the right to claim, under !
the conditions stated, a maintenance dur I
ing the suit for separation" may interpose !
this claim at any time before final cree !
why, in the present case, where the District !
Court has not passed upon the question. the |
wife should be debarred the right of |
prosecuting this incidental demand after |
the rendition Of the judgment. Her manner |
of proceeding by rule was not objected to in |
the lower court. The final termination Of |
the suit may be prOtraCted for some time 90 |
come, etc. The rule taken by relator |
is, therefore, discharged.
The above is the celebrated Malady case,
in which the wife sues the husband and |
Mary 3. Caldwell for large amount of
property, the wife having lost sight of her
husband for long period of years, finally
finding him here in New Orleans.
United States Circuit Court Judges
Woods and Duren
The following named grand jurors have
been empsneled in this court:
Alfred Moulton, foreman; Perry Nugent,
.. O'Brien, George W. Mott, John d. Cobb,
Edward O'BrieD, 2. Lanman, john Sinnott,
David McCoard, Denis Cronan, George ".
8ancker, Zenon Maxlent, H. H. Wa # Ed
ward LaChemeyer, Henry Shephere, W. c. !
Raymond, l.. d. Sarpy aud Alfred Olivier.
Indictments by the Grand Jury.
The grand jury empaneled in the United
States Circuit Court has found the follow
ng true bills:
Two indictments against Robert W.
Taiiaferro. late Postmaster in this city, on
charges Of embezzlement,
Counterfeit Uaited States Notes
Joshua W. Buck, indicted for having in
rs possession ald passing counterfeit.
United States notes. has been arrested and
lis relesse ordered upon his giving nond
With security according to Law in the sum
# $4,000.
The Drowning OF John NJ. Neyson-Exis
Widow ancs for SSA ORO n.m,v~.
Yesterday a petition WAS filed in the Sew.
nth District Court in behalf of Eliza Jane
'elson, and the heirs Of John NJ. Nelson,
laming $50 900 of Duncan F. Kenner and
tichard TaylO as lessees of the new canal
he petition alleges that about the fifth of
february, 1870, about half past seven O'Clock
n the evening. said John III. Nelson left the
ity of New Orleans for the purpose of re.
urning to his home on the Metair,e Ridge,
rawbridge at the Hallway House, in the
arkness, the drawbridge being open.
e drove into the canal, and himself aud
orse were drowned. The widow and heirs,
therefore,, claim the amount of damages as
ct forth above. .
Eighth District Court.
Board of metropolitan Police VS.. s. N.
this case defendant has been |
erved with an alternative writ of mandamus
D deliver to the board the books and papers ,,
ppertaiDiDg to his Office as treasurer. No
Dswer having been filed, the case was post
oned until Saturday.
A. W. Walker VS.. Thomas L. Maxwell. !
herlff, and G. Dufour, agent. In this case
udge Abel has rendered the following
ecision:
The plaintiff seeks to DIN the execution +
witt Of seizure and sale by executory
rocess, directed TO the Sheriff in the writ Of {