New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-11-08
THE COURTS.
The Supreme Court

| tees IaliafeITO, Howell and Howe. A1tel
| the reading Of the minutes and the calling
Of cases. a motion was made by Mr.. Hawk
ms and entertained by the court, having
| for its object an adjournment in respect te
| the memory of the late Associate Justice O
the Supreme Court, Zen0n Labauve.
The district courts all opened regularly
for the winter term. several OF the Judges
rendering decisions.
The only District Judge not present upon
his bench was Judge Duvigneaud. OF the
Second District Court.
Important Batture Decision.
Burdeau ct ais. vs.. Charles Morgan, Chat
tanooga Railroad Company ct -als.-Judge
Collens, of the Seventh District Court,
yesterday delivered an important decision
in the above case, III which the plaintiffs
contest the right Of defendants to set aside
for their own special use certain portions
Of the batturc, levee, etc, in the First Dis
trict, under the color of an act of the Legls-
lature and an ordinance of the Common
Council Judge Collens says:
In my opinion, it is clear that the batture
mentioned was once the private property
Of the riparian proprietors; that the city
and State (it matters not whether either or
both have now no rights to that batturc
except those defined by the compromise
made with those proprietors on September
by the compromise, the State and city be-
came only the trustees and administrators
for the uses and under the restrictions eX-
pressed: that the compromise prohibits any
alienation or disposition of the property,
and any building or work upon it, except
Waterworks of the city, and wharves to IA
cilitate commerce; that the donation is made
to the city as a servitude in favor of the
other parts Of the city, to be enjoyed by its
,t,ot,s re in hot
though not personally parties, the inhab-
itants. as such, have the right to demand
the benefit Of the stipulation made in their
favor l.. c., 1896. 755 and 1884, G. p. 35
and prevent its violation. and that, in fact,
such violation is attempted by the legisla-
tive act and city ordinance in question.
Neither the city nor State have right to
dispose Of the batture as if they held it in
full partnership They have no such title.
either of them. They hold it not by SOW
ereignty or proprietorship, but have ac-
cepted it under private and peculiar title.
They are bound by their contract and must
faithfully fulfill their trusts, which must be
Interpreted as guaranteeing to every inhao-
Any work rendering the use more incon-
venient H. c. 03, 774), or establishing
special destination to be enjoyed by particu-
IdF private PERSONS OF cOlpOfatIOuS, anu not
by the public, would be a violation of this
contract. The act and ordinance complained
of certainly contemplate giving special
privilege OH the one hand. while on the
other they intlict exclusion, inconvenience
and inequality. Thus they impair the Obli-
cations Of contract, and are, therefore.
contrary to the constitution Of the United
States. Z. S. Cons. art. |, sec 10.
The plaintiffs having prayed for $1,000
damages and for an injunction to restrain
defendants, Judge Collens says There is
no proof on the record that any damage
that could be valued in money had at the
date the case was tried, been suffered by
the plaintiffs, and as to the injunction
prayed for, the Eighth District Court alone
has jurisdiction to grant it in iminic or by
final judgment. Hence the only relief this
court can give the plaintiffs and intervenors
Is to declare the nulEty Of the acts passed
to impair their title.
Fairex Va. Frellsen.
In this case, which involved the payment
Of eleven notes. amounting to SS6,790, being
part OF the amount given by plaintiff to de-
tendant in the purchase of plantation and
slaves in the parish of st. Charles. Plaintiff
set up that the notes should be Cancelled be-
cause at the date of the sale December 81,
1853, the persons sold as slaves were not. in
fact, slaves, and could not be so held; that
the contract was contrary to public morals
and police; that the State constitution of
1868 now prohibits the enforcement of an
obligation contracted for the purchase of
slaves, etc. Judge Collens, for reasons
given which will be published hereafter. re-
Jected the demand of plaintiff with costs.
Eighth District Court.
In the Eighth Mstrict Court. Mr. Beck
with has withdrawn his answer filed in the
suit of p. X. O'Connor, deceased. in which
he reflected somewhat upon the opposite
counsel. Mr. Denuee, of Messrs. Belden
and Denuee, Of said counsel, contended
that the language used in said answer was
insulting, and that Mr. Beckwith should
either apologize to the court or withdraw
the pleadings.
The clerical force of thc several courts
yesterday, was considerably thinned. the
young gentlemen having gone of to vote,
and IN some instances to assist at the polls.
Heirs of EscOtt VS.. City of New Orleans.
In this case plaintiff sues for the owner
ship of valuable batture property near the
foot OF Julia street. Judge Theard yester-
day rendered the following decision:
For the written reasons assigned by the
Hon. A. NJ. Buchanan, of the Third District
Court in his Judgment in the case of Made
Inc Bosque (heirs of Jean Antoine Escott)
vs.. Municipality No. ., and for the reasons
assigned by the Supreme Court affirming
he judgment, which reasons appear to me un-
inswerable, it is ordered that the claim of
~ int IF hn