New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-12-11
THE COURTS.
The Great Sulphur Mine Case.

. In the Fourth District Court, Judge
Theard, again comes up the controversy be-
tween the Louisiana Petroleum Company
and the Calcasieu Mining Company, for the
ownership or right of possession OF tract
Of land in the parish of Calcasieu, on which
is situated what is said to be the richest
sulphur mine hitherto discovered in the
world.
The Supreme Court of the State, at its
last session, decided that the right to the
lease Of the mine for ninety years was
III the Sulphur Mining Company, and the
case now comes up on peremptory eXcep-
tions filed by the Petroleum Company, to
the effect that the original owners OF tho
lease (Escoubas g. LOVELY had sold a liti-
giOus right
The Petroleum Company claim that I'M
der the law they have the right to purchase
the property on paying to the Sulphur
Company the amount paid by them to the
original lessees.
On the opening of the court yesterday
the Petroleum Company, through their at
torneys. Mr.. Odgen. the younger, and Mr..
Thomas j. Senmes, rendered to the Sulphur
Company a certified check for 81, ,5OO be-
ing the price alleged to have been paid by
Alexander BOnneval to EscOubas Il Lowell
for the ninety nine years lease Of the mine.
Mr.. Koselius, for the Sulphur Company,
declined to receive the amount. stating that
the Petroleum Company owed them
nothing.
Mr.. Ogden, the younger, then opened the
argument, pressing his views as to the exist
ence of n litigious right at the time the legal
proceedings were going on.
Mr.. Ogden proceeded to give history of
the case, from the time the Petroleum Com
l,any first sent their pioneers to the swamps
of Calcasieu for the purpose of boring for
,etrOleum-where. amid sickness and death,
they continued to bore to the depth of
many hundred feet, until at last their efforts
were crowned with the discovery, not of
petroleum, but of the richest deposit of sui
phur known in the world. He went on to
show that when this invaluable discovery
had been made, the parties now litigant,
who we're then partners in the petroleum
enterprise, turned against their copartners,
and sOughttO appropriate to themselves all
the riches Of these vast mines.
Mr.. Ogden proceeded to give succinct
and eloquent history of the case, and was
followed by other counsel. The matter is
not yet disposed of.
The Sherif,s Office Difficulty.
The case of Sauvinet against Maxwell. in
vOlving the question as to whether Mr.. Man
well is in contempt of the order of the
Eighth District Court III failing to turn
over the money Of litigants left in his hands
as outgoing Sheriff, came up for trial yes
terday.
Mr.. Dick. chief deputy of Mr.. Maxwell
on the stand, stated that every effort was
being made to settle the accounts, but the
presence of Mr.. -Sauvinet's clerks in the
Sheritf7s office retarded business, and this
state of things was unavoidable.
Counsel for Mr.. Sauvinet was urgent to
have the money belonging to the iltlgants
paid over to him Immediately.
Defendant averred that he had not had
sufficient time to turn over the money and
effects OF the office. and that both he and
his deputies were working at the business
faithfully and labOriously.
The chief deputy, Mr.. Dick, exhibited a
statement involving the question of some
seventeen thousand dollars in litigation. i'll
the suit of kearny VS.. kearny Il Blois,
which the defendant, Maxwell. had been
ordered to prepare by one of the other
courts. 1t was large and elaborate docu-
ment, and had taken fully two days for
preparation. Mr. Dick further stated that
Mr.. Sauvinet had the sale books, desks,
etc, of the Sheriff office in his possession,
and that the statements necessary for turn
ing over the public moneys. only could be
worked upon by single expert. at odd
times. whenever in temporary possession of
the books.
In answer TO the question by Judge Dibble
as to how long, it would take TO prepare
these statements, and how many there were
to be prepared, Mr.. Dick replied that he
could not state but that there were q very
large number.
Counsel for Mr.. Sauvinct commenced his
argument to prove that the defendant was
guilty Of contempt, and claimed that the
only question involved was, has the order
of the court, ordering the turning over Of
the money to the plaintiff, been cbeyed:
that the defendant. in showing that he could
not Immediately comply with the order Of
the court. because his private funds were
mixed with those OF the pubic, confessed
himself at fault.
No conclusion was arrived at.
Eighth District Court.
In this court Judge Dibble rendered sew
eral decisions, one OF which was in the case
of the Police Jury OF the parish of Jetfer-
son fright bank VS.. the City of New Or
leans, which involved the payment of SlO(S
for dirt used in filling up sunken lots. Judg-
ment was rendered for the plaintiffs, the de-
PENDANTS virtually making no defense.
In the ease OF Bernard II. Flaspoller VS..
the Chattanooga Railroad, plaintiff peti-
tons for an injunction to restrain the Chat
tanooga Railroad Company from building
their depot Oh the leyee il the First Dis
trict, and thereby depriving him OF the right
OF way to the river front, was refused by
the Judge. who stated that the case would
come up on its merits with the rest OF the
eases, which have been fixed for January 9.
1875. when the constitutionality of the acts
granting the Chattanooga Railroad Com
pany the right of building their tracks and
depOts on the levee will be argued.