New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-01
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court of L0uislana.

|
until November next. The following deci-
| sions were rendered.:
! State of Louisiana vs. Nathan Schwab.
| Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson
-faliaferro J. delivered the opinion Of the
| court.
This is an appeal from a judgment upon a
rule taken by the District Attorney upon
the Sheriff Of the parish of Jefferson, by
which the Judge q quo suspended the
Sheriff from his office on the grounds,
|. That he neglected his duty as sheriff in
failing to arrest party against whom bill
Of indictmept had been foand for shooting,
with intentto kill, one Hugh Brum. OF the
said parish of Jefferson.
2. For failing to make his return under
oath, as required by the third section OF
an act of the Legislature, numbered 1913,
approved Oh the twehty-ninth OF Septem-
ber, 1869.
By the provisions of that act, charges of
the kind brought against the defendant,
which authorizes, in the cases mentioned,
the suspension from Office of a Sheriff, it is
made the duty of the District or Parish
Judge, upon the facts being made known to
them by the District Attorney of the district,
to suspend from office such delinquent
Sheriff, and thereupon to forward to the
Governor OF the State copy of the proceed.
ing and order of suspension, to be by him
laid before the Legislature at its next ses.
sion for their action, in either reinstating
the officer, or dismissing him permanently
from Office. This suspension, in the case OF
the defendant, occurred July, 1869, ana the
proper report was made to the Legislature
at its late session.
The session has terminated without the
action of that body being taken in the case;
and we infer that, no proceeding having been
had in the premises by the Legislature,
which. by law, has Jurisdiction of matters
of the sort, the decree Of the court suspend.
ing the defendant is virtually annulled, and
that he is entitled to resume the functions
of his Office. It is therefore ordered that
the judgment of the District Court be an
nulled, .and that he Is entitled to resume
the functions of his office; further ordered
that the Sheriff be reinstated in his office.
John Davidson VS.. Carroll. Hoy d Co. APP
peal from the Seventh District Court of New
Orleans, Howell, J. Judgment reversed and
ordered that there be judgment in favor of
plaintiff for the amount of the proceeds of
the property in controversy, in preference
TO the defendants, who can take only after
the amount due plaintiff and his venders is
paid. Defendant to pay all costs.
Eighth District Court.-The Netropoli-
tan Police Board.
Metropolitan Police Board VS.. s. n Bur.
bank-In this case, Mr.. j. r. Beckwith, At
torney for the Board, made a motion to the
effect that case bearing the above title,
now pending in the Sixth District Court, be
transferred to this court.
Judge Dibble suggested that a motion to
transfer the case should be first made in the
Sixth District Court. and if refused by
Judge Cooley it would then be time TO take
the matter under consideration here. Mr..
BeckWith expressed his intention TO act upon
the suggestion.
T,,c, irt,x na~ 80 La
son, vs.. City of New Orleans.-This case,
in which plaintiff claims a balance of $780,
due on the lease Of the Gretna Ferry, and
also one.third Of the amount OF eleven notes
Of $500 each, yet unpaid, came up for exam.
nation. Judge Dibble held that manda.
mus would not lie against the city.
Metropolitan Police Board vs.. s. n. Bur
bank.-In this case g rule was taken on de-
fendsnt to show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt in refusing to obey
AN INDUCTION herein issued. This morning
came up motion to dismiss the Injunction.
Mr.. Beckwith objected to trying the mo-
ton to dissolve until the defendant had first
purged himself of the contempt. Judge
Hawkins contended that an INJUNCTION
would not lie to restrain an officer from dis.
charging his duties. That would be an
abuse Of the writ. The case was postponed
until Monday, the sixth instant.
The case of Lizard VS.. city of New Or
leans, was continued by preference.
State ex rel. Ship Island Canal Company
VS.. city of New Orleans.-Mr. Lacey, City
Attorney, moved for continuance of the
case in order that witnesses might be sum-
moned Cn the part of the city.
Mr.. Lacey read an answer showing that
the Ship Island Canal Company had not
complied with the terms of its charter, and
had no right to stand in judgment; that the
City of Jefferson had no right to issue the
$500, 600 of bonds claimed by George F.
Brott, and that the ordinance under which
the City Of Jefferson issued said bonds was
absolutely null and void.
That, in accordance with the stlpulations
of the drainage contract entered into by the |
City of Jefferson, the bonds were not to be !
issued until the work was completed. Mr.. |
Lacey insisted on continuance of the case
in order that he might summon witnesses |
TO prove the allegations in his answer.
Mr.. Thomas j. Semmes replied, opposing
the motion tor continuance.
Mr.. Lacey made q motion that relatOr be |
required to file in court the books, etc., be- |
longing to the company.
The motion was overruled. The case was |
continued until Tuesday, the seventh |
pr0XimO.
The Sulphur Mine Case. !
In the case of Escoubas & Lowell vs. the |!
Louisiana Petroleum and Coal Oil Company,
the Supreme Court On the twenty-third of !
May, rendered q decision against the de- |
PENDANTS, and ordered that a writ be issued |
putting the plaintiffs in possession of the |
ands.
Yesterday the old company filed suit in
he Fourth District Court, in which they |
claim, under the provisions of act 1922 of |
he Civil Code, they have right to take the |
place of the Calcasieu Sulphur and Mining |
Company under that transfer of citizens |
light, and offer to assume all of its obliga.
ions arising from said assignment in favor
If the lessons, Escoubas and Lowell. /
They consequently tender the new COM !
,any whatever it may have paid in money
or the assignment, and declare themselves |
eady to take its place in every respect.
The Jacks Kailr Dad Gaze.
The matter of the quo warranto to compel
General Beauregard and the old Board of
Directors to show by what authority they
lold their Offices came up for trial yester-
lay in the Eighth District Court.
Several witnesses were examined, and the
ase postponed until this morning.
Fifth District Court.
In this Court yesterday, the writ of
'harles Case receiver of the Fist National
sank, VS.. Spencer Field, for the recovery of
5000, the amount of promissory note, was
ried before a jury. 1t appeared in evidence
hat Field, in 1867, gave his prOmissory note
or. 5000 to A. S. Mansfield, payable at cer-
sin time, which the latter deposited in the
'irst National Bank as collateral in part
0 secure the payment of note for S33 COO.
his note of $4,000 was among the assets of
he bank when it went into the hands Of the