New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-12-24

TFD0D1eQG ADVERTISEMENTS Same
Daiiy. Monthly advertisements inserted for enb-
liberal commission allowed to those who send
- clubAof i've or moro.
THE COURTs.
Unifcd States Circuit Csurt-Judge Durell
Presiding.
Jouvin Dayen VS.. .Gueble & Nippert.-In
answer to rule on the defendants to show
cause why an injunction should not issue,
the defendants filed the following exception
to the Jurisdiction Of the court:
These defendants, Francois Gueblo and
Victor Nippert, by prOtes tatiOn, not con-
Tossing or acknowledging all or any of the
matters and things in the said compliments
bill of complaint, mentioned and contained,
to be true, in such sort, manner and form as
the same are therein set forth and alleged,
for plea to the whole Of said bill say: That
this honorable court hath no jurisdiction to
hear and determine the matter therein
alleged, inasmuch as these defendants arc
not, as alleged in said bill, citizens Of the
State Of Louisiana, but are, in truth, aliens,
natives of the Department Of Ia Meurthe,
In France, and citizens of said country.
Therefore these defendants do plead tho
fact Of their alienage in bar Of the COM
plainants bill, and aver that the State courts
alone have jurisdiction over the matters
complained Of in the bill, inasmuch as the
cOmplainants allege themselves to be aliens;
and these defendants pray the judgment of
this honorable court, whether they should
be compelled to make any further answer
to the bill; and pray to be hence dismissed
with their reasonable costs and charges, in
that behalf most wrongfully sustained.
The court ruled that the defendants must
answer to the "rule to chow cause;" that
tho exception to the jurisdiction of the
court was not such an answer as is requisite
in the premises; that an exception TO tho
jurisdiction of the court, to be supported
by proof Of fact en- pays, must be served
upon the opposite party, and set down for
trial.
The court, therefore, granted the injunc
ton prayed for. with permission to move
. dissolution thereof on future day.
Fifth District Court.
George Gallagher vs. H. D. Brinkman.-
In this case plaintiff, BY his attorney, 7. A.
Bartlette, brings suit for SIS, 900 damages for
an assault on himself person ally, and for
abuse Of his wife. Petition II AYERS that on
the thirteenth Of June, 1875 b., WAS grossly
abused and violently assaulted and beaten
by the defendant.
Petitioner AYERS that for the last three or
four years he had been an invalid, suffering
from bodily infrmities; that on the morn
the sweet, and used vile and abusive Ian
guage, which petitioner could not resist,
and from which he has suffered damages to
the extent of $4,000. That defendant then
went to petitioners house, aud abused his
wife, who, in consequence OF the excitement
resulting therefrOm, was confined in bed
several days, by which he was damaged
5000, making in all $4,000.
Defendant for exception Gays that the pc
tition disClOses no cause for action, in that
it fails to show the estimated amount of the
The Court Overruled the exceptions and the
case went over.
The Case of the n1ilkmen.
August Vita ct al. VS.. Board of Metro
politan POlice.-This is contest between
the dairymen of the city Of New Orleans
and the Board of Metropolitan Police.
The facts alleged are, that about the IF
tcenth Of December, about thirty five dairy
men were arrested and imprisoned in tho
each, and their milk Carts, mules and horses
impounded by order Of the Recorder until
tho fines should be paid.
Petitioners allege they are fearful that
as the Christmas holidays approach and
milk will be in great demand, the police
will again arrest them, unless enjOined
from doing so or unless restrained by AN
order Of this court.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.. Braughn,
contended that there was no city ordinance
compelling milkmen to sell pure milk. The
existing ordinance only prohibited milk
men from mixing deleteriOus matter with
their milk; water was not an impure mix
ture. 1t was purer and more healthful than
milk.
He admitted that the milkmen did mix
pure warer with their milk, and if people
chose to buy watered milk, there was no
law to prevent the milkmen from selling it.
pay the full price, Instead of paying fit
teen cents quart. they could pay twenty
five cents q quart, and then they could get
pure milk.
Counsel compared tho nilkmen to the
coffeehouse keepers. The coffechOuse keep
ers sold rOtgut for fifteen cents glass, but
If drinkers wanted better article they
must pay twenty-five or FIFTY cents glass.
You pay your money and take your choice.
If the city wanted pure milk they must
pass an ordinance declaring that pure milk
only must be sold, and as yet no such ordi-
nance had been enacted.
Mr.. Beckwith, tor the Police Board, read |
the answer of the defendant, in which he |
claimed that the complaint for an iniuno-
ton was founded on an error, and that it
was an accusation against the board of o
misdeneanOr, which they could not have
committed as board. The first principle
to inquire lie, if all is true that is alleged in
the complaint of petitioners; whether there
is anything IN the charge that would call for |
an injunction. Admitting that they had |
been imprisoned, the matter was one exclu- |
sively for the recorders to determine. If |
the parties felt aggrieved by the jurisdic- |
ton, they have right of appeal to the SUI |
preme Court, whose authority they could |
have evoked.
Consequently, even if the parties had |
been illegally arrested, it was justified by |
the subsequent decisions Of the Recorder,
and there was no ground for asking for an
injunction. The lay gives the Metropoli- |
tan Board control Of these cases-it com
pels them to enforce these ordinances.
Even if such an injunction could be OBJ
tanned, it would be Of little avail for or
against these parties. There was, however,
no ground under the code for asking for an
injunction in this case.
Judge Dihbls sisted that wherever q suit