New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-29

NEW ORLEANS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 49, 1870

SlaughterhOuse Company VS.. Board Of Me-
tropolitan Police.-In this case the following
rule was taken yesterday: =.
On motion of j. r. Beckwith, of counsel
for the Board of Metropolitan Police, and
on suggesting to the court that the plaintiff
in this cause has not complied with the or
der of this court requiring additional bond
and security as indemnity against damages
resulting from the injunction, 1t is ordered
that the plaintiffs show cause on day to he
fixed, why the injunction should not be set
aside.
The trial of the rule was fixed for Mon
day. the tenth prOximo.
This is the case in which the meat slaugh-
tered at the CavarOc plantation was seized
by the police as having been offered for
sale in violation of the SlaughterhOuse law
Board of Metropolitan Police VS.. S. N.
Burbank.-In this case the defendant was
ruled to show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt in failing to render
his account as Treasurer OF the MetrOpOli-
tan Police Board.
Much desultory debate took place be-
tween counsel. Judge Dibble remarked
that the defendant had made a sworn re-
turn, and could not be compelled to give
testimony going to show that his return
was false His affidavit that he had not in
tended contempt of court was sufficient,
and his return showing that he had turned
over all the effects in his hands belonging
to the board was a complete answer.
Counsel for defense argued that Mr.. Bur
bank had made full answer to the rule for
contempt: had sworn that his accounts were
completely settled, with the exception of
$lOO in bank, which he was ready to settle
when properly called on. and this was the
end of the case. If Mr.. Burbank's answer
was not true, he could be prosecuted Grim
inally.
Mr.. Beckwith, for the plaintiff, contended
that there was a deficit of Sl20, 600 in de-
fendant's accounts, and that his answers
| were not true.
Counsel for defendant argued that the
question as to the deficit was not before the
| court. that matter having been settled for
| the present by his sworn answers. If his
| answers were not true, the proper course to
pursue was to prosecute him criminally.
The court held that defendant could not
| be made to testify contradicting his return.
Mr. Beckwith remarked that if the de-
| fendant could not be compelled to testify
| generally. he had nothing more to say. The
! rule WAS dismissed.
Sixth District Courf.
Peter Miller VS.. New Orleans City Rail
road Company.-The petition Of plaintiff,
| filed by his attorney, 3. Il. Forman, yester-
| day, shows that he is daily passenger on
the cars of the New Orleans City Railroad
| Company, on the Canal street route that
daily he is detained unnecessarily and un-
reasonably in the middle Of the journey, at
the stables of said company, at the corner
of Canal and White streets; and that the
ears of said company, on said route, run
with great irregularity and often at much
longer intervals than every fifteen min
utes, from daylight till ten O'Clock P. NJ.
and every thirty minutes from ten o'clock
p. NJ till midnight. That the said com
pany, by especial contract with the city, for
the use and benefit of all citizens, is bound
to run its cars regularly every fifteen min
utes thereafter till midnight. That as
common carrier it is bound to
carry passengers to the end of its route
safely and without unnecessary delay.
That on Sunday night. September %.
having taken passage on one Of the cars OF
said company, to 20 to his home on Metairie
Ridge, petitioner arrived in the stables of
said company, at the corner Of Canal and
| White streets, and when he demanded to be
sent ont to the end of the route, to the point
for which he had taken passage the fore
man. servants and agents of the company
refused to send another car, and when pc
titioner expostulated, they fell upon him,
knocked him down, stamped upon him,
| dragged him ont of the car. and made him
walk home, bruised and bleeding as he was.
| For this he claims 5000 damages