New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-11-18
THE COURTS.


Eighth District CoMTf-13e Contested EkSic.
tion CaaeA
The cases of Thomas L. Maxwell and
Captain TObin, claiming respectively the
parish Of Orleans, came up for examination
yesterday. PLAINTIFF counsel, Alfred Phil
lips, opened the case. Major John II. New,
Of the firm Of Hays & New, also appeared
for plaintiffs.
Counsel read the petition originally pre-
scented to Governor WarmOth, George r.
Bovee and others, showing that he had been
legally elected to the office in question, and
asking that he be declared duly elected
This petition is embodied in the one filed in
court.
Nj. Phillips read the act of the Legisla-
ture Of 1870, regulating elections, and pro-
ceeded to state that illegal practices fraud
and intimidation had been resOrted to by
the registrars and commissioners of cleo
ton. for the purpose of defeating the petit
TONER.
The petitioner asks that the returning
officers NAV be enjOined not to make their
returns until the claimant has had an Oppor-
tunity to assert his rights, and prove the
frauds alleged to have been perpetrated by
the registrars.
Attorney General Belden replied. refer
ring to the exceptions filed by defendants,
in effect as follows:
/. The petition shows no cause Of action.
2 Admitting all the allegations of the Pc
titiOn, they do not warrant this court in ex-
ercising control either by injunction or man.
damus over the defendants as returning
officers of the election.
g. The duties of the defendants are minis
terial, and can not be interfered with or con-
! trOlled in the manner sought ia the petition.
The Attorney General read various authori-
ties, and commended that the proper course
to be pursued was to allow the defendants
! to make their returns, and then file a regU-
lar suit contesting the election. He said
that at present it was not known whether
Mr.. Maxwell or Mr.. Sauvinet was elected.
TO ascertain that fact the canvassers of
election must first make their return.
Colonel A. P. Field appeared on the part of
Mr.. Masicot, whose election as Criminal
Sheriff is contested by Captain TObin.
Colonel Field commended that the COM
J. niesioners Of election, including the Gov
exnor, could receive nothing or listen to
nothing, except from the registrars or com
missiOners. He read the ffty-ffth section
Of the election act, and argued that no judge
Of court could entertain jurisdiction in
such a case. He quoted section twenty-nine
Of the election act in support OF his position,
and objected that there was no specific obi
cation showing at what particular precinct
an unfair election was held.
The allegations made by the plaintiff were
entirely too general, and this objection was
applicable to the petition presented to the
returning officers, and also to that filed In
this court Colonel Field cOntended that
the act of registering was, under the law,
full proof of the fact, and the commissioners
were the judges as to the regularity OF the
election, SO far as to justify them in prOmul-
eating and publishing their return.
Major New followed, stating that the
commissioners of election, being political,
adherents Of the parties defendant, could
not be expected to make returns disad-
yautages to their friends, and that as a last
resort the plaintiffs must apply to the courts.
The case was Submitted, and Judge Dibble
announced that his decision would be rem
dercd this morning.
Another Contested Election Case-Joseph
Llado VS.. DR.. j. T. JacksOn.-Ia this case
petitioner AYERS that at the election held in
this city on the seventh of November, the
defendant and petitioner were candidates
for the Office Of Coroner of the Second and
Third Districts of New Orleans, which Office
petitioner is only qualified to fill. Peti-
toner is informed that the returns. as mani
tested, show majority Of seventy-three
votes in favor of defendant, though, in fact,
petitioner himself received majority.
Sixth District Court.
Daniel Mulligan VS.. City of New Orleans.
This case has at last been brought to a con-
clusion, having been tried before jury of
: taxpayers and decided in favor of theIplain-
tiff. The amount of the payment involved
is 59,400 The case has heretofore been
tried before Judge Cooley, who also render
ed Judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and
the matter having been appealed to the SUI
preme Court was sent back on account Of
some informality in the record.