New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-15
can not be reviewed in any other than an


March, another District Court in this parish
has the power to enjoin its own decree COM
planned Of, the writ ought not to be sought
from this court, and will not issue.
There are cases contemplated by the act
aforesaid, in which iDjunctions may exclu-
sivelv issue from this court in matters de-
pending before the other District courts;
and in which cases the records of such pro-
ceedings could be transferred to this court
having the exclusive Jurisdiction to grant
the relief. But such cases only arise when
the acts sought to be enjoined are con-
nected with the judgments or DEGREES OF
said courts.
1t was with the supposition that this was
such case that the restraining order was
granted.
It is, therefore. ordered, adjudged and de-
creed that the Injunction prayed for be re-
fused, reserving to defendants the right to
proceed to recover damages for the delay
occasioned by the suspending order herein
granted. Plaintiff to pay all costs.
The slauEhterhouse Case.
SlaughterhOuse Company vs.. Metr0polltaH
yesterday in the Eighth District Court, on
u motion to dissolve the injunction made
on the part of the city Of New Orleans.
Mr.. J. r. Beckwith asked leave to join with
the city in the motion. Among the grounds
taken by the city is one to the effect that
the defendants are rendered liable to
damages by obedience to the writ to the
amount of $4,000. and that the bond OF
$4,000 given by plaintiff was insufficient.
That they were required to proceed
against the property Of third persons, not
parties to the suit, without having any writ
or process against the persons SO affected.
That the act creating the Slaughterhouse
provides that it shall perform it's own police
powers, etc.
Mr.. Lacey, for the city, here read the
melton for the dissolution of the injunction.
Saughterhouse, asked leave to enter an
order, which was granted by the court and
acceeded to by Mr.. Lacey, which mOdities
the writ of injunction Issued:
"And now before the court comes the said
plaintiff, and shows the court that it was
not the intention of the plaintiffs in the suit
of Injunction to embrace within the pro-
visions of that writ salt or preserved meat,
slaughtered beyond the parochial limits of
Orleans, jefferson and st. Bernard; and to
that extent plaintiffs in the suit consent TO a
modification of such suit without prejudice
to either party
After the fling of this order of modifca-
ton, the rule taken by the city to dissolve,
through Mr.. Lacey, City Attorney, was con-
tinued over, by consent, for week.
Then was called up that phase of the case
in which Messrs. Cotton and Fellows were
to appear as dnalc5 curl0.
Mr. Fellowes and Judge Cotton declined
to appear as friends of the court, since the
city and the Metropolitan Board and the
Slaughterhouse Company had come into
court. They said these gentlemen could
| take care OF themselves.
Judge Dibble suggested to these gentle
| men to argue the case, SO that he might get
| all the light he could upon it.
Mr.. Fellows said he did not propose to be
| made tool of to crafty any of the parties
litigant. He had only appeared upon the
written request of the court, but had de-.
cded that until the parties he represented
were made defendants he should not argue
| the case.
After Mr.. Fellows and Judge Cotton, who
appeared as amicl caueg had de-
clined to act.
Judge Dibble said that he desired to have
| the matter argued and if it could be shown
that the injunction had been improVidently
issued he would dissolve it, but If after the
argument he was still of opinion that it had
been imprudentIy issued, he would see that
the order of his court was oDeyed. Judge
Bradley, or any other Judge of the United
States Court to the contrary, notwithstand'
ing. He characterized the acts of Judge
Bradley in relation to this case, as unwar-
rantable, revolutionary in their character, :,
and subversive of all law and order.
| He wished it understood that the order OF
his court, based upon the order OF the high
est tribunal of the State Of Louisiana, which
has passed upon the issue in question, and
has declared in favor of the constitutionality
of the Slaughterhouse act, would be obeyed
and executed at any and all hazards.
It was agreed, after consultation, that the
rule to dissolve should be argued at the same
time on the part of the Slaughterhouse, the
city and the Metropolitan Police Board.
The argument was participated in by Mr..
Beckwith, Mr.. Lacey and Mr.. Hornor. The
latter in closing, said that the theory of Wen
dell Phillips was true. that the States, with
respect to the general government were in
the position of mere counties. The decision
of the case was deferred until Monday next
Sixth District Court.
Bernard Avegno vs.. Opera House Com
pany.-In this case Judge Dibble yesterday
rendered decision forbiding the sale of
plaintiffs pew i'll the Opera House.
United States Circuit Court.
The grand jury empanelled in this court,
yesterday brought in true bills Of indictment
against ]. H. Alexander, for falsely repre-
senting himself to be revenue officer, and
against E. II. Gruber, for receiving graz
tuity. There are four charges against the
latter of the same character.