New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-18

Another Phase Of the elaughter house
inalion ofC. A. Weed.
Yesterday morning Mr.. C. A. Weed, Of the
Times newspaper, accompanied by his coun-
sci, C. Roselius and w. Fl. Hunt, appeared
before United States Commissioner D. Ur-
ban, ESQ.,, to answer q charge OF violating
the civil rights bill and the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments of the constitution of
the United States, as set forth in an affida.
Wit by G.. Stafford, which has been hereto.
fore published.
Governor Warmoth, Lieutenant Governor
Dunn, and number of other persons, ap-
peared as witnesses. Mr.. Bigney, chief ed
itor of the Times, and Judge Walker.
both gave their testimony to the effect
that the articles that have lately appeared
in the Times. which have been construed
as inimical TO the butchers, were not written
BY Mr.. Weed, nor even seen by him prior to
their publication. The testimony tended
to show that. in the opinion OF several wit
nesses, Mr.. Weed was large stakeholder
in the Slaughterhouse Company, and was q
director therein. The examination of the
witnesses occupied seven hours, and the
Office of the Commissioner was densely
crowed with interested spectators. At
eight o'clock last evening the further con-
sideration of the case was postponed until
ten o'clock this m orniDg.
The Warner Divorce Case.
B. Rix Warner VS.. Mary Ann Hinckley.-
In the Eighth District Court Judge Cooley
presided yesterday, and disposed of the
famous divorce case of B. Rix Warner
against his wife. The decision was neces-
sarlly delivered in such. language as pre-
cludes its publication, and Was the occasion
of much merriment to the spectators in the
lobby. The Judgment was against the appli.
cation for divorce, the judge holding that
hod 81 n q a
to blame as the wife. Petition dismissed.
F. Earhart attorney for the plaintiff, and A.
P. Field tor the defense.
The jackson Railroad Case.
In this case yesterday, before Judge
Dibble, of the Eighth District Court, Mr..
Simonds made motion for a suspensive
appeal in the name of G. T. Beauregard,
president and stakeholder, and C. Fellows,
stockholder. Judge Dibole said that, as
regards the claim of General Beauregard to
an appeal, the Supreme Court of Louisiana
had settled that matter in the case o. James
P. Sullivan ct ais. vs.. the old Board of
School Directors. Mr.. Simonds read the
decision alluded to by Judge Dibble, and
contended that it did not apply. The court
said it was parallel case, and that so far as
General Beauregard, as president, was con
cerned, it could not grant an appeal. It
had examined the case closely, and could
case of the president.
The Judge cited the late case of the City
Council, in which the Ceuncilmen had held
that they were interested in the revenues of
the city Mr.. Simonds said that was a case
of q political corporation, and this of q
private corporation. He called the atten-
ton of the court to the suspensive appeal it
had granted in the case of the Drainage
Commissioners. Judge Dibble replied that
-, 4bo& ouca ho waa satisfied he had m da
mistake, and he was certain the Supreme
Court would say so.
Mr.. Simonds then went on to cite authori.
ties. He cited the case of Hero VS.. Pilot.
The court held that the case was not anal
agous that General Beauregard did not
have monetary interest in common with
the other parties to the suit, on account of
being director-he received his salary as
president. He cited the case of State vs..
Hackett. and argued that certain clauses in
the affidavit filed by General Beauregard,
entitled the directors to an appeal-all pos
sessing stock to greater amount than $500.
He thought it was an extraordinary case if
the directors were not interested in seeing
their road protected.
Mr.. Simonds closed by stating that he de-
sired that the court should hold up the exc
cution in case it decided that an appeal did
not lie, so that the defendants might apply
to the Supreme Court Of the State for re-
lief.
The court, at the close, ruled that the mo.
ton of appeal must be Overruled, because
the case was not appealable, there being no
amount above $500 III dispute.
Mr.. Semmes, at this junCture, fled mo-
ton asking that executory process issue at
once, which was ordered by the court to be
entered.
After the entering Of the order of court
refusing the appeal and the order of execu-
tory process, Judge Campbell, who had re.
NAMED silent up to this moment, rose and
said he desired to file 8 petition under the
twenty fifth section of the judiciary act, and
to make an application for writ OF error to
the Supreme Court of the United States, to
act as supersedeas.
Judge Dbble did not think the writ of
error would lie to the United States Supreme
Court.
Judge Campbell replied that he could fur.
nish authorities sufficient to satisfy the
court.
Judge Oibble reiterated that he did not
think the writ would lie.
Judge Campbell cited the celebrated case
of Cohens VS.. the State of Virginia, where
the appeal was taken direct to the United
States Supreme Court from the lowest court
in the commonwealth.
Mr.. Semmes conceded the position taken
by Judge Campbell, but'it was to be shown
whether the case, as at present situated,