New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-01
THE COURTS.
Eighth District COurs.


this court:
State of Louisiana ex REL, Attorney Gen
eral VS.. F. G. Mahan.-The petition OF tn
State of Louisiana, by. Simeon Belden
Attorney General. upon his own iutorma
ton, and in his official capacity. with respec
represents that Francis G. Mahan is unaW
fully holding the Office of State Tax Coilecto
of the First District eff the city of New Or
leans, is in possession of the tax rolls an'
list of delinquent taxpayers, and is attempt
ing to exercise All the rights and privilege
belonging to. and pertaining to said office o
tax collector.
Petitioner represents that George A. Sher
idan has been appointed to SAID ONCE b.
Governor Warmolh, under the provisions O
act No. 68 of the Legislature. OF Louisiana
Relator. asks that a Judgment be rendered
decreeing said Mahan to be unlawful,
usurping said Office, and that Sheridan 81
put in the possession aud ENJOY Ment o. .-h
emoluments thereof.
Powers Of the Eighth District Court
Writ of Prohibition TO the Clerk o
the Sixth District Court - Judg'
Dibble Refuses to Issue It.
In the case OF the Chattanooga Railroad
Williamt WOelper, Charles Morgan, ct al.
Judge Dibble yesterday rendered the fol
lowing decision:
The petition in this case sets forth that tht
plaintiffs, the Chattanooga Railroad Com
pany and the Board of Harbor Masters
have been served with a writ of ipjNctior
from the Sixth District Court at the suit O
Charles Morgan. The subject matter OF tbs
said suit is disc losed and 1t is averred thai
the said Sixth District Court is without ju
risdiction to issue such al INJUNCTION. The
petition alleges that this court is vested
with the sole power OF issuing iDjuIctions
and concludes with q prayer for prohibition
against Charles Morgan and his attorneys.
and against William Woelper, clerk OF saiC
court, to restrain them from proceeding
further in the said suit before the said Sixth
District Court.
The respondents TO the rule deny the ey.
elusive Jurisdiction OF this court to issue il
functions, and urge that the writ of prohibit
ton sought in the premises would have
the effect of subordinatirg the said Sixth
District Court to this court, and OF course
ought not so TO issue.
The rule was ably and thoroughly argued
by eminent counsel. The decision recently
rendered in the Case of Michael Lizard VS..
John r. Conway. Mayor, e. al. was held TO
await argument upon the point of jurisdic.
ton made il this case, and passed upon 10
that.
For the reasons given in the case just
named, l am Of the opinion that this court
is vested with the sole and exclusive jQris-
diction within this parish, to issue anEDjunc-
ton, except in a few specific cases named in
the act creating this court; and. therefore,
that the aforesaid Morgan and his attorneys
were not justified IN obtaining from the
Sixth District Court the writ complAned OF
by the petitioner herein.
But it is urged by respondents thst the
writ of prohibition asked for ought not 10
be granted, because such an order from this
court would be in the nature of the eXer-
else Of appellate powers over d cour. Of
equal rank.
No such extraordinary powers are granted
20 this court by the statute creating 1t, and
the issuance Of the writ of prohibition rs
therein provided fJr would not, il my opia.
ion, have the effect apprehended by the re-
spor dents. The section of the act author
izing the order asked for by plaintiffs reads
as follows:
SEC. 4. Be il further enacted, etc, That
IN all cases in which Al injunction shall
issue from the Eighth District Court il suits
or proceedings pending before the other
district courts of the parish of Orleans, il
shall be the duty OF the judge and clerk Of
such courts il which such suit or proceed
ing is pending, 10 immediately transfer the
record OF such sat or proceeding 10 the SAID
E ighth District Court, which shall be vested
with power 10 hear and determine such
cause as if the same had been originally
brought in said Eighth District Court. I'M
upon the passage of this act, Il
shall be the duy Of the judges ofthe Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh District Courts for
the parish OF Orleans to transfer 20 the
ighth District Court for the parish Of Or
cans, all suits or procee dings the luTisd:c-
ton over which is by this law vested il said
Eighth District Court.
The said Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh
are Invested OF all jurlsdic-
ion over such cases, except for the purpose
If entering an order Of transfer, and the said
Eighth District Court shall be and is hereby
vested with power to near and determine
;uits or proceedings so to be transferred, as
f the same had been originally br7uxh: il
said Eighth District Court. The Judge of
said Eighth District Court, for the parish OF
Orleans, shall also have power and authority
% issue writs Of prohibition or mandamus
directed to the clerks OF the other District
Courts, or to the parties TO ally suit or suits,
and their attorneys in all cases where neces-
.ary or expedient TO enforce and protect the
Jurisdiction OF said Eighth District Court, as
granted and conferred By this act.
Upon considering the language OF this
section, in connection with the whole
statute, it must appear to any TAR minded
nan that the great object sought 10 De ac
mpllshed by the law makers WAS TO guard
ne special and exclusive jurisdiction over
wrlts granted to this court. 70 the
md Of preventin z the recurrence OF such con-
cts between the courts i'll this city as de-
handed and justified the enactment OF the
aw. So the power was given this court 20
protect its special jurisdiction by Compel
ng liligauts to con tine themselves to this
,ourt in all matters Of suit or contest de
pending herein. and by authority authorizing
wits of prohibition against attorneys who
nay, INVOCATION and contemp, of its author
ty, seek the Interference Of other courts il
matters of contest before this
1t is said that the wit of prohibition IS
IN order issuing from an appellate and su.
)erior court to restrain the judge Of an in
erior court who exceeds his jurisdiction.
The writ at common law is always under
TODD TO be such Al order; but 1t is rene
lial process, and within the control OF the
legislative power to be extended or limited
n its Specification or effect. The writ OF
nandamus at common law is prerogative
writ issuing IL the kings name and only for
he court OF kings bench; 10 America this
writ can not be issued by a court unless by
Yirtue of legislative enactment. | can see
10 constitutional objection TO the grant OF
power to issue the writ Of prohibition or
restraining OrGer in the manner and form
lnder discussion.
But u1 ierStanu the power TO Issue Wits OF
as above granted, to mean this:
When proceedings have been instituted in
his court, coming withiS its special and ey
elusive Jurisdiction. the writ viii lie TO
prohibit and restrain parti directly Or in
irectly to such proceedings, SD their
attorneys, from seeking the inteIf renee or
,ther courts, or from acting in any other
manner in violation ana contempt Of the
authority of this court. The writ will lie
without regard to an injunction previously
obtained from another court, for no 9ther
court than this ia the parish has power or
authority to issue or determine au iDjunc-