New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-11
THE COURTS.
United Elntes Circust Csurt-Hen. w. II
VI woods. PreaId.nE Judge, Hon. e. IA
l,ure / I5strlct ,SuGRe.

transacted IN this court.
Armand Pelie vs. Emily D. Laplce, Am
brose G. Lapice, Joseph T: Lapice and
Peter NJ. 3. Lapice-In this case it is Or
drred that the plaintiff recover OF defend
ants in eoildo. ten thousand dollars, with
interest at eight per cent from the twenty
ninth of December, 1864, until paid, and
two and n half per cent on the aggregate OF
principal ard interest as attorneys iees, and
that :,laint.H's mortgage for the amount be
recognized.
H. Campbell & Co. vs. R. F. Buckner-
tiff paying costs.
p q. Bethel VS.. Edward Mathews-Judg-
ment for defendant, with costs.
United States vs. BOrse Fair Piav-Judg-
ment OF the District Court affirmed, with
costs.
United States VS. $500 II specie-Appeal
dismissed, with costs.
United States vs. thirty-seven barrels Of
rum-Appeal dismissed with ats.
United States vs.. ninety demlJoAnS OF
hquor-Appea dismissed with costs.
United States vs. fifteen barrels of dis
titled Spirits Appeal dismissed with costs.
United States vs. fifty barrels OF whisky;
appeal dismi sed,
United States vs. twenty-one barrels Of
run-Appeal dismissed
Uuited States VI. one hundred barrels Of
whisky-Appeal dismissed.
United States ys. schooner Lydia Volti'
geur-J Judgment of the District Court
affirmed, with costs.
United States vs. one hundred and forty
one bales and two bags Of cotton IL this
case the cotton was l,beled for copfscetion,
and it appearing that the seizure Was made
on lan1, the appeal was dismissed.
Damages for Enf.i gsnent of ~ Patent.
H. 8 GOODYEAR, ct al. vs. H. Gumpert.-
This WAS u suit for infringement of Good
years Iudia Rubber patent. Ordered that
the Judgment pro co1JeSso be confirmed !:
tina. The Injunction issued be made perpet-
uai, and the defendant, his clerks and en-
ployes be forever enioined from making any
hard rubber for dental purposes or from
using any hard rubber, such as is described
in the re-issued letters patent in dentistry,
or for dentsl purposes, or IN the manufac-
ture Of artitciai teeth, or plates for setting
teeth, in which such hard rubber is used.
1t is further ordered that defendants be con-
demued TO pay the plaintiffs one hundred and
ninety six dOllars damages, n fee Of fifteen
dollars to the Master in Chancery for his
services and All coss.
H. B. Goodyear ct al, VS.. E. Tele-Tbis
is case OF the same character as the above,
in which like decree is made, with damages
at $3.50 TO- with q fee of ten dollars 20 The
Master in Chancery aud all costs.
United States vs.. Steamer Southerner and
Cargp gp.-Ordered that the judgment OF the
District Court dismissing the libel and re
storing the libled property TO Mrs. Aicklin,
be affirmed with costs.
De asterd & Brady vs. P. 0. Grand. as
sisnee, eC.--Ju7gment Of The Distric. Court
affirmed with costs.
Chhrge Of Murder on the KEieh Seas.
TIE Case of Captain D mean and Air. Fraser,
second officer OF the ship Francis Marion,
charged With the murder OF James or
Thomas Whitley, on tn twen.y-ifth of De-
cemDer last, was up before the grand jury
yesterday, and they failed to find a true bill.
Asa T. Cochran ct Al. Va. Y. A. Frevllle
and George II. Wickiife in this case, yes
terday. there Was ap appeal taken to the
Unite States Supreme Court. Appellants,
by an ibj junction in ChanCery, resist the col
lection OF S204l, being q claim tor the one
per cent tax, OIL the ground, among others,
that there vas no assessment roll for the
town OF Agiers FOR the year 1867. Wallace
4 Ianiin tOr defend ants aud appellants, and
The Attorney General and Fergus Fuselier
for plaintiffs and appeee5.
Eighth Di.trics Court-Usurpa,ien OF
State e1 rel. Attorney General S. Belden
aud John r. Clay VS.. @. G. Biandin.--In this
case petition was Il ed yesterday. wherein
it is alleged that the defendant is unlawfuIly
holding the office Of Tax Collector for the
Third D strict of New Orleans, and that
pIaint fl has been appointed to the office by
the Governor.
Petitioner asks for Judgment decreeing
that he is entitled to the office.
The Chattanooga Railroad Case.
New Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga
+ .ilroad VS.. City of New Orleans ct al
hblp NJ tho + nth Dic<riof
yesterday rendered decision, substantially
as follows:
In this case the plaintiffs obtain an irjunc-
ton against certain officers of the city of
New Orleans and others. defendants, to
restrain them from interfering with plain
tiffj in their exercise of a legislative grant
to use certain riparian rights III front OF the
city, ard to construct a railroad along the
levee and out of the city through certain
avenues. A rule to dissolve this Injunction
was discharged. In the reasons therefor /
referred to the nature Of PLAINTIFF rights
under their grant, aside from the conslitu
tiOnal questions now raised.
The city OF New Orleans filed an answer;
then, assuming the character of plsjntiff in
reconveDtion, the city, through lis attorney,
urges at great length the inva!idity and un-
COnsti utionalitg OF the graut Of franchises
aforesaid, sought to be protected by the
VI SiIidi WI IL vi iutiCllOu ueiGIll. 1ut It
demand concludes with
prayer tor an Injunction to restrain the
ooga Railroad Company. Plaintiff,
from asserting in any manner or form the
right TO construct their depots along the
evee and in front Of the city, under the Leg
siaiive grant referred to.
In examining the case Of Ochislvich Il
Healy against these plaintiffs, came so the
conclusion that the leyee, as q public way,
IS under the paramount conGrol Of the
state.
8 public tt ing.
The city can not control and regulate the
1ses Of this public thing, because, as have
onnd, that power is with the sovereign.
l can, therefore, see no vested right of
he city of New Orleans which has been
Inverted.
With the policy of permitting the plain
ifs 10 construct their railroad ard depots
1t and upon the particular points named, |
rave nothing to do.
| conclude that the law does not yiolate
he constitution, as supposed by plaintiff 10
econven'ion. | will. therefore, not grant
he writ of injunction as prayed fer, which
would have the effect to Ob6truct the extcu-
ion of statute, not having found it to be
violation of the constitution. The defen-
ian's nust prosecute their principal action,
md upon the merits alter my opinion, or
,btain q reversal iU the court above.
1t is therefore ordered that the injunc-
ion prayed for in the reconvention.' de-
nsnd of the city OF New Orleans BE- refu-t d.
rno Af'c.n H,ethndist Chgrch CASE
Iadxe DibDle's u H-c.siun.
IL this case, wherein A. Z mar and others
re defend ,nts, Juoge bible. of the Eighth
District Court, yes sterday delivered the fCl-
o wing decision:
This injunction suit was transferred to
his court from the Seventh District Court.
1t involves the right to coUtrol the church
property of an incorporate religions organ