New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-04-17
THE COUNTS.
E,ehth D,.triet Court.


This morning Judge Campbell moved that
the defendants be allowed to suspend the
| operation of the injunction, by giving BOND
in such sum as the court might fix, until the
| final decision of the case. Judge Campbell
| argued the motion at considerable length,
and was replied TO by Mr.. Thomas Alien
| Clark, on the part Of the plaintiffs. Mr..
| Clark contended that the levee and the
| banks of the Mississippi river had been con-
| secrated to public uses from the time the
! State was admitted into the Union, and that
there was 10 Legislative power to appropri
ate them 10 the uses of private corpoI alton.
| Judge Campbell rejoined. arguing the
| great advantages acCruing to the city 10
general and to the plaintiff in particular,
from the building of railroads.
| Judge Dibble remarked that he had had
| occasion to consider the question a few days
| ago, in another case, pending between dit
| ferent parties, and had determined not to
| let the defendant give bond under the same
| circumstances.
The motion to allow defendants to give
| bond was refused.
| damus ON Judge Bubble and his An
swer.
| In the matter of the writs of mandamus
| and prohibition from the Supreme Court,
directed to the Judge of the Eighth District
Court, Judge Oibble yesterday tiled an an
| swer, substantially as follows:
There is a suit pending in the Eighth Dis
trict Court, entitled Henry s. McComb VS..
New Orleans, Jackson and Great Northern
Railroad Company. The plaintiff alleges
that he purchased from the city Of New Or
leans eighty thousand shares of the capital
stock Of the New Orleans, Jackson and Great
Northern Railroad Company; that the de.
PENDANT refused to recognize him as Ii stock.
holder.
The petitioner sought the interposition of
said court TO protect him in his alleged right
OF ownership in and to said stock. This pc
tition was filed on the fourth day Of April
instant.
On the sixth day of April, the attorney for
the city CT New Orleans, filed 3 petition OF
Intervention, setting up that the plaintiff
was not the owner of the stock in question;
that the pretended sale made to him was
fraudulent and null. The petition of inter
vention prayed for and obtained an junction
to restrain the said Railroad Company from
recognizing the plaintiff as the owner Of the
stock. The petition Of Intervention also
aTerred that the said McComb had in his
possession the certificates for the aforesaid
shares Of stock claimed by the Intervention as
still the property of the city Of New Orleans;
that the intervenor was apprehensive Nc
Comb would use the certificates, in order to
have the same transferred upon the books
of said railroad company, or would remove
the same out of the jurisdiction Of the court.
The lntervenor prayed for and obtained
an I'M junction. to restrain the company and
the plaintiff from transferring the stock,
until the determination of the rights Of the
city of New Orleans in the premises.
The intervenor also prays that the court
should order a judicial sequesiration Of the
said certificates; also should order the same
be filed in court, there to remain until the
final determination of the suit. The certif-
Gates were accordingly sequestered.
On the eighth day of April the plaintiff.
from whom the said certificate Of stock had
been taken by said process of sequestration,
applied TO respondent to be allowed to bond.
Respondent returns that, having heard
argument, and having considered the law,
he believed it to be his judicial duty, uEder
article 279, Code of Practice, to permit the |
mover TO bond the property. The certih- |
cates, which respondent believed to be |
property, or at least things within the pur- |
view of article 269 of the Code OF Practice, |
were in the hands of the court only by viz |
tue of a writ of sequestration. There is no |
such proceeding rs impounding, under the |
laws Of the State, known to respondent. |
There seems to be no exception TO the right |
10 bond.
Respondent returns that he rendered an |
order granting said motion to bond. In or |
DER 10 determine the amount OF bond uldeT |!
dTLicie ZiJ ". l., TeSpOuueul tOoh lHLo nc |
count the amount alleged to have been paid |
for the stock and thereupon fixed the bond |
at three hundred thousand dollars.
Respondent further returns that its true, |
as alleged, that the applicant herein moved |
in the said Eighth District Court aforesaid |
for suspensive appeal from the aforesaid |
interlocutor's order permittirg.the property |
sequestered to be released to the plaintiff
upon bond. Respondent AYERS that he then |
believed, and now believes, that it was his
duty as judge, to refuse the suspensive ap- i
peal. Appeals are only allowable from de-
fnitive judgments or rom interlocutory or
ders, which will work irreparable injury.
Respondent AYERS that he then believed,
and now believes, that no irreparable inju
~ could come to the, applicant by reason of
the motion granted to the plaintiff to
bond the properly. The forthcoming
bond was and is sufficient to protect
the city of New Orleans from any harm.
Judge Dibble here quotes numerous au-
thorities in support of his position.l
Respondent further and finally returns,
that he proceeded, as he believes, according
to law in the Judicial acts complained of;
but if it is the opinion of the Superior Court
that he should have granted the appeal
asked for. and refused as aforesaid, respon-
dent AYERS his readiness to comply with any
and all orders which may be directed to
him in the premises by this honorable court.
Respectfully submitted.
HENRY C. DIBBLE.
Judge Eighth Distric. Court, parish of
Orleans.
II. s. McComb VS.. Jackson Railroad
Yesterday, E. Bermudez, Esq, moved in
his case for subpenas dtpces tecun,, directed
% Governor Warmoth, Mayor Flanders, and
others, directing each of them to produce in
court, the evidences of the sales made by
hem respectively, of the shares of stock
owned by the State and city in the Jackson
Railroad Company.
sixth DEstricf OOurt-Snils Against the
City,
General Braxton Bragg and eight others
who were recently employed in the City
and were turned out by the new
administration, have brought suit for the
whole amounts of their respective salaries,
for the present month of April.
Eighth District Court.
In this court yesterday, Judge Dibble
rendered decision refueing the transfer Of
the suit entitled Chattanooga railroad vs..
city Of New Orleans, ct ais, to the United
States Circuit Court, except so far as Charles
Morgan, one of the defendants is concerned.
The application on the part of Pandely,
Whitney, ct ais, was made on the ground
that they had no interest in the case, butl
Judge Dibble decided that while this might I
be good ground for asking dismissal at
this court, II was not ground for asking
for transfer TO the United States Circuit
Court. The decision is based upon an act
of Congress of July, 1866, amending the
judiciary act Of 1889. The injunction
against said defendants, except Charles
is therefore continued in force.
Marie Louise Dupant, VS.. Sun Mutual In
surance Company. this case plaintiff
claims that she insured house situated on
Ursulines street, between st. Claude and
IRENE, in the Office of the Sun Mutual In
surance Company. for the sum of $4,000.
The house was burned and the defendants,