New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-04-03
THE COUNTS.
Eighth District Court An Interesfina
Divorce euit.

Divorce euit.
B.R. Warner VS.. Mary Ann Hlnckley, his
wife.-The plaintiff in this case alleges that
he was married to the defendant in this city
on the seventh OF May, 1869, and That lateiy
his wife has contracted the abomlnaOle
habit of eating morphine, to such an excess
as to render It impossible for her to fulfill
the duties of wife, helpmate or companion.
He alleges that on the night of December
~. 1869 she left home aud spent the
night at house on Phiiippi street, which
is a notorious place OF resort Tor waiting
Girls and .beer jerkers," and that she did
not return home until ten O'Clock next
morning. It is further alleged that the de-
PENDANT hired herself to the proprietor OF
certain concert saloon to act as model ar
tist. and has been gully of other indiscre-
tons which entitle the plaintiff to divorce.
+. 3. Earhart, plaintiff g attorney.
Eighth District COurt-3udge Dibbie
State ex.rel. George T. Brott v5. 5. u.
Moody. late Controller Of the City OF Jeter-
son.-ln this case relator prayed for and
obtained an order of mandamus directing
him to sign certain bonds, as Controller OF
the late city OF jefferson, a full account OF
which has been heretofore published.
On the opening of the court yesterday
morning, J. 4. Beckwith, City Attorney, reao
en- answer, and for reason why peronptory
,uaudamus should not issue against defend
it,
the city of jefferson, has no power or au.
thority to perform any act IN the name OF
the CITY OF jefferson, for the reason that no
such CORPORATION exists that by virtue OF
| section 81 of the act of the Legislature. of
March Is. 1870, the city of Jefferson
ceased to exist as corporation; ana tnat
said city of Jefferson was dead before the
| issuing of tie order in this case.
Aud further answering, defendant says
| there never was any lawful ordinance
under which he was required to do
| the act demanded by the order herein
| issued, and that the pretended con-
| tract or notarial act filed IN this cause
| is not the. act OF the. CITY OF JeneIson,
| that the officer who purports to nave
! executed the same had no power or au-
| thority to do so. And defendant further
! saws that at no time has the reIator pre-
| scented to the respondent any bond or bo0os
| which he is required By law to lndorse or
| write his name upon in any manner, as oon-
| troller or otherwise.
| tion of the case was resumed in the alter
| noon. when it TRANSFERRED in evidence that
tha bonds for 500 coo had never been ls-
| sued by the City of Jefferson. Upon TINS
orennd. and others stated by Mr.. Beckwith
| for the defense, the mardamus was dis
| charged. .r Nom
j. N. Hoyle VS.. Mayor and Council OF New
| orioans in this case, heretofore reported,
in which plaintiff obtained an Injunction
from Judge Dibble, restraining defendants
from leasing tina City WaterWorks' sno 1 sen.
| ing the bonds owned by the CITY 10 ,ne JaoH
son Railroad, H. Z. Kimball, at a late hour
Friday night, filed an Intervention as ioi-
lows: oh
| He represents that ]. n. Hoyle mas Cd
tanned a writ or Injunction against the Com-
mon Council and the Mayor, proniolting
them from legislating in matter ALREADY
within their control, and authorized py an
act of the Legislature Of the State OF Louis,
lana. to wit: The sale of the stock owned
by the city of New Orleans in the Jackson
and Great Northern Railroad; that said