New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-23
THE COURTS.


G. Schmidt Va. Couture Brothers. In
this case petitioner AYERS that he is an at
torney ut law, and that the defendants, who
were lately commercial firm in this city,
are indebted to him in the sum of $463 50.
Petitioner AYERS that in the month Of July,
1865, the said defendants having received a
consignment of 2O9 casks and 8l4 cases Of
wine from Alphonse Cahuzac, of Bordeaux.
in the empire of France did enter the same
at the Customhouse of the port of New Or
leans, and there presented an invoice of said
wine purpOrting to give the actual cost and
market value Of the same at the aforesaid
city Of Bordeaux at the time Of their expOrta-
ton, but which entry and invoice the reve-
nue. officers of the United States considered
as false and fraudulent, whereupon tie Col.
lectOr Of the Port of New Orleans caused
the aforesaid wines to be seized as forfeited
to the United States, under the provisions
of the sixty-sixth section Of the act of Con
gress of the second of March, l779, and the
first section of the act of third March, 1868,
for undervaluatiOn.
That monition having issued according to
law, calling upon all persons having any
claim to said wines to make themselves
known, the said defendants, as well on be-
half of said Cahuzac as in their own behalf,
engaged the services of j. L. TissOt and Of
petitioner to defend them and arrest their
claim az cOnsignees as well ~ the claim OF
the owner, said defendants engaging to pay
whatever said services were worth.
Petitioner AYERS that his services were well
worth the amount charged, and III support OF
this ayerment he shows that the wines were
worth $4,000. He AYERS that the defense of
the case was exceedingly difficult and arsiu-
ous. /. On account Of the hired spies and
informers sent to the different wine markets
in Europe. 2. On account OF the great
number of salaried witnesses, paid expressly
to give their testimony in this and other
cases Of the United States, known as the
wine cases. 3. Because the claim
of the United States was asserted
by four eminent counsel, all Of them
well acquainted with the revenue laws
as well as with special pleading, and
who had devoted much time to the study
of the subject. 4. Because of the strict
construction adopted by the judge on the
trial Of the cause. 5. On account OF
the exclusion from the jury Of all persons
who could not take the oath required by
the second section Of the act Of Congress
of the seventeenth Of june, 1864, known in
common parlance az the ''irOn-clad oath"
whereby nearly all competent and impartial
men were excluded from the jury.
Petitioner further shows that this cause
was pending in the United States District
and Circuit Courts for nearly three years
before it was decided. and that the labOrs
he performed were well worth the sum
claimed.
Supreme Court of the state Of Louisiana.
On the petition Of the Pontchartrain Rail
road Company, corporation established by
law. and domiciled in New Orleans, this
court has issued the following writ of man
damus:
State of Louisiana, ex rel Pontchartrain
Railroad Company-No. 29O6.-The Judge
of the Eighth District Court for the parish
of Orleans, greeting: Whereas, a petition
has this day been fled in this honorable
court praying for writs of mandamus and
prohibition against you, for having refused
suspensive appeal, as prayed for in the
accompanying petition, and said writs hav-
ing been ordered to issue
Now, therefore, you are hereby COM
manded in the name of the State OF Lou
isiana and of this honorable court, to grant
said s,,spensive appeal, or to show cause on
the first Wednesday of November next. at
eleven o'clock A. NJ, why you should not
act as set forth: and YOU are further ordered
to abstain from all further proceedings in
said case in conformity to the REALTORS peti-
ton, a certified copy Of which ishereto an
neXed. -r-..
JOHN T. LUDELING.
Chief Justice.
Suit for Divorce.
Antonio AlonzO VS. Mathilda PecOra his