New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-12-09
THR COURTS.


Eighth District Court, in which they make
various and grievous charges against the
Metropolitan Police force. They show that
they are the proprietOrs of that delightful
resort, No. 66 St. Charles street, where
nightly the devotees of the rosy god meet in
j0vial crowds, listen to music Of doubtful
morality, and drink brimming beakers Of
lager beer, handed round by pretty waiter
girls.
Petitioners allege that they have paid all
the licenses and taxes required by municipal
and State laws, and that, as citizens and
taxpayers, they are entitled to the pr0tec-
tion Of the police authorities.
They state that they conduct this estab-
lishment in a peaceable and orderly man.
ner.
They represent that freqently during the
last few weeks the police have made raids
upon the establishment; that the officers
and members of the police stationed on st.
Charles street, between Canal and POy-
dras, have all more or less aided or abetted
in making such raids, and that said acts of
the police constitute trespass upOE their
premises, and are in violation Of their
rights as citizens and taxpayers.
Complainants aver that particularly, on
the fifth of this month, between eleven and
twelve o'clock at night, the police, COM
posed of members Of the general police
force, did, in large numbers, forcibly and
without pr0vOcation Of any kind, enter the
establishment No. 66 St. Charles street, and
the establishment, save and except cOlored
waiter.
Petitioners aver that these acts of the
police were done for the purpose Of black
mailing the owners of the establishment;
and that the police board are responsible
| for the acts of their subOrdinates
Petitioners fear that these illegal arrests
- \. 4, c~<c s,~s,, AI,o
reputation and business OF the establish
! ment; that the constant expectation that
these alleged acts of outrage keep the peti-
| tiOners in constant dread.
| They ask that the defendant be enjoined.
Judge Dibble issued the injunction, re-
| turnable this morning
The Hunsaker Habeas C0rpus Case.
At the opening of the Eighth District
| Court yesterday, Mr.. Brickell. counsel for
the defendant, the Deputy Sheriff of the
parish Of Ascension, rose, and addressing
Nav it please your honor, in the matter
of the Hunsaker habeas corpus case, you
stated yesterday that you would grant the
surety until this morning to produce into
| court the body of DR.. d. s. Hunsaker.
II would like to know" continued the
counsel, "from your honor, if your order has
been complied with p
/
the surety, was in court, and no answer
being given the Judge instructed the Sheriff
to look him up.
After some little delay, the Sheriff, who
had left the courtroom. returned with Mr..
| Toy, who, advancing to the Judges desk,
engaged the court in whispered converse
| ton.
Judge Dibble, addressing Mr. Brickell,
said that he was informed by the surety
that the accused was then with the Attorney
General, and would be in court in a few
moments.
Subsequently Attorney General Belden,
who happened to come into the courtroom
in pursuit of the multiplied duties devOlving
upon him by virtue Of his official position,
stated that he knew nothing about the case
whatever, or the accused, and had not seen
or heard Of him at all.
This was stated to the court. In the
meantime w. H. Toy, the surety, had with.
drawn, and motion was made to forfeit
the bond.
Public School Master.
The City Attorney yesterday fled the
following petition for an injunction:
The injunction prayed O,,s,isyt for is agains, St
Public Education and the Auditor Of Public
Accounts, to prevent the payment of the
ward boards Of school directors Of the
State school funds, and to restrain the said
ward boards from interfering with the City
Board in the establishment of the schools
employment Of teacher, ETC., on account Of
the forfeiture, BY the ward boards, by theil
failure to organize and enter upon theil
duties, and their failure to make provision
for the establishment of schools and EN-
ployment of teachers before the first day Of
December, 1870, as required by sections
fifty-one, fifty-two and ffty-three of the
school act.
The Judge granted rule to show cause
returnablc on Monday, December II, 1870
Suit Against the Lessees Of the New Canal
In the Fifth District Court, Charles Case
Receiver of the First National Bank, ha'
sued General Dick Taylor, lessee of the New
Canal, and contractor for it's improvement
under contract made with the State.
The defendant has fled an answer, IL
which he presents the following grounds o
defense:
l. That the public revenues arising from
the franchise granted by the State to til.
defendant are not liable to be seized, and
the policy of the State in the use and i'm
provement of it's public highways can no
be so impeded and set at naught.
9. That the policy of the State with sale
defendants involved personal obligations OF
the part of the grantee, onerous upon him
and of great public utility, which are no
susceptible of alienation, except by the SOW
ereign power of the State.
| 3. That the seizure and sale, under eXecu
ton, of the rights Of said defendant under
his contract with the State, would impair
| the obligation of the contract between tht
State and the sureties of said defendan
under his contract, and release them from
the same.
4. That the New Canal and its tolls ant
revenues on the exclusive property of th'
State can not be diverted to the payment o
the debts Of any individual, except by th'
Legislature of Louisiana.
The Times Libel Suit.
This case was submitted to jury yester
day in the Seventh District Court.
At six o'clock they retired and in few
minutes returned, stating that they coult
not agree They were then discharged, anC
thus ends the case for the present
Second District Court.
Succession of Nicholas Markey.-In this
case, decided by Judge Duvigneaud, i
seems that Major Tracy, the clerk of tn
court, prepared q transcript of record fol
an appeal to the Supreme Court, and tht
appellant paid his bill, amounting to forty.
five dollars. The Judgment was reversed
by the higher court, and the other party
ordered to pay all the costs. Among othel
items claimed was this sum Of fOrty-five dol
lars. It was objected to as being excessive
only eighteen dollars; but inasmuch as thu
law provides that where a charge is made
contrary to law, the whole bill is forfeited
the Judge struck out Mr.. Tracy's costs en-
tire1y.
Major Tracy promptly repaid the whols
sum to the appellant.
United States Circuit Court, Judge Durel
Pre9id1Tg:
| United States VS.. j. &. Olivier, Celestint
/ sohn Il ~