New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-22
THE COURTs.

THE COURTs.
The slaushterhouss Case-ContenDt Q
Court-Jndse Campbell and Mr.. Eel
lows Fined.
State Of Louisiana ex rel. 8. Belden, At
torney General vs.. William Pagan ct al
The rule taken by the plaintiff 8. Belden
Attorney General, on the defendants t
show cause why the decree rendered in thi
suit and affirmed by the Supreme Court o
this State should not be executed and tn
full force and objects of said decree carried
into immediate execution, as required b,
law, contin ued for trial, came on yesterday
Counsel for defendants presented to tn
court petition, applying for removal o
the cause to the United States Circui
| Court.
The following is copy of the petition:
| And now, heretofore otherwise appearing
herein. comes Paul Esteben, Louis Ruch
Jean Pierre Rouck, William Maybe, Solo
mon Firnberg, Bartholomew Beaubay
William Pagan, Joseph Daniel BrOderick
Nicholas Siebel, Martin Lannes. JOSEPH
| Getzinger, Jordan I. Aycock, Dominique
| Verges, and Charles Cavaroc, defendants,
| in the above entitled and numbered cause,
and to the rule herein issued by the honor.
able court on the first of June, 1870, and
served upon them. And respectfully repre-
| sent that the acts, matters and things de.
manded by the plaintiff and relator
| in the said rule, and the orders
prayed for therein are inconsistent
United States, and especially to the four
teenth amendment thereof, which secures
and protects the citizens of all the States IN
| their privileges, and immunities as citizens
| from the invasions of the laws of the State,
and secures to them the equal and full pro-
| lection of the laws; and are inconsistent
with and contrary to the provisions of An
| act of Congress, which became law on the
ninth of April 1866, entitled San act to pro-
tect all persons in the United States in their
civil rights, and furnish the means of their
vindications.' and especially of the
first section thereof, and an act of
Congress approved the thirty-frst of
May, 1870, entitled San act to enforce the
rights of citizens of the United States to
vote in the several States in this Union, and
for other purposes" and especially of the
sixth, sixteenth and eighteenth sections
thereof, which laws secure and protect them
in the right to contract and be contracted
with, to buy, sell, hold and possess personal
property, and by them they are protected in
the pursuit of their lawful occupations and
the right to pursue the same to the equal
extent and on equal terms with those
claimed in said rule in favor of a separate
and distinct body of persons who have been
incorporated and for whom privileges and
immunities are claimed which abridge the
rights, privileges and immunities of
the defendants and are violative of their
rights, privileges and immunities under
said acts and the fourteenth amendment
aforesaid. And these petitioners, defend
ants, severally allege and say that they
verify believe that their rights can not be
and will be denied them in this
court, and that they can not obtain a just
and impartial decision herein upon the
of the United States and the
acts of Congress aforesaid.
Wherefore the annexed affidavit and bond
being considered, these present appesrers
and petitioners pray that the said rule taken |
herein, and the proceedings Hereunder be |
from this court to the next term |
If the United States Circuit Court, Fifth |
Circuit. District of Louisiana.
(Signed) FELLOWS & MILLS,
CULLOM & LEVY.
SPOFFORD & CAMPBELL,
Attorneys.
Personally appeared the undersigned,
Who being duly sworn, say that all and
angular the allegations in the foregoing |
'etition are true.
(Signed:) Martin Lannes, Paul Esteben,
Joseph D. Broderick, Louis Ruch. J. Gitz-
niger, J. P. Ronede, William Maybe. 3.
s. Fernburg. Verges Dominique,
!. T. Aycock, William Tajan.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
eighteenth day of June, A. d. 1870.
(Signed) j. D. TAYLOR,
Deputy Clerk.
Judge Dibbe at once said that he could
ot but look upon such an application, con-
aiming such language, as insulting and i'm
roper. The charge of denying justice was
oh, <nE., ha,,, L l. 4 l
AIKEN solemn oath to administer Justice to
II. He said that he therefore felt con-
trained to enter the following order. In
Ding so, he expressed his regrets that so
erious difference should have arisen be.
ween the court and attorneys whom he
ED in such high estimation.
Ordered that the petition filed by the de-
'ndants be Withdrawn from the files, and |
eturned to the counsel of the defendants, |
containing matter improper and insulting
} the court; that J. @. A. Fellows and
Ohm A. Campbell, attorneys at law, be each
ned in the sum of one hundred dollars, for
)ntempt of court. in presenting to the
)urt tine aforesaid document, in which an
'sertlon is made that this court will deny 1
stlce to defendants, citizens of the 1
'ate, and that hearing of this rule be con.
nued until Tomorrow, to enable defend
It's to make such defense as may be
'oper.
Sixth District Court. Is
State eX-relstione. B. r. Forman VS.. Re-
rider of Mortgages and city of New Or
ans. The relatOr having purchased a piece +
property on which there was inscribed s
7elve general judicial mortgages in the i
,me OF his vendor and in favor of the city of :
ew Orleans for back taxes; the relator took
is proceeding to compel the recorder of ,
ortgages to erase these Inscriptions, be.
use they appeared az general mortgages, :
I'd not as special mortgage on the prop. :
ty lab for the tax. The court held that !
Q law WAS specific and plain, and these
ortgages must be erased, and made the 6
lie absolete. q
Spearing vs.. Spearing.-In this case Judge 2
,oley said: In the exception taken in the o
sc OF Spearing VS.. Spearing the evidence r
tisfes me that there was partnership
tween the parties. 1t is impossible to | h
nceive how they could have been in any v
her relation toward each other than that
partners under the facts which have been o
oven here by different witnesses. In fact +,
e only testimony that would go to show F
ere was no partnership is that of persons :
ost interested in proving there wac none. q
The officers of the banks who have had 4
alings with the firm of Spearing & Co., y
owed that the only member of the firm q
ey knew was the plaintiff. John Spearing. 81
WAS lne one VINO maze the deposits IN | 6
g bank; he gave his signature as the sig q
ture OF the firm; he drew notes in the d
me of the firm, and caused them to be
In fact, all the business of the | g,
N with the banks was conducted by him. u
There was no written act of partnership | a,
tant. don't know that there is any ne g
sslty under our law, for written act of s
rtnership. y
think the evidence clearly shows there
IS a partnership between those parties, h
therefore the exception based On the b