New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-04-22
THE COUNTS
Second District Court-Judge Duvig-
neRud.


Succession of Milton Taylor.-The question
involved in the rule taken by Messrs Labatt
& Aroni, as to the right of the Public Ad.
ministratOr to interfere with and take pos.
session of this estate, came up tor trial
yesterday. Hays Il New-represented the
Public Administrator. TWAS argued oy mr.
Labatt, that under the comfy OF states,
and the constitution of the Unlted Stases'
our courts have uniformly held that for
eign executors and administrators were en-
titled to recognition upon complying with
existing laws, viz: To take the oath, receive
letters and give bond, with good and solvent
security. That Milton Taylor died before
the law was passed to appoint PUBIC al
ministrator, and that j. j. hickey, the ao-
mlnistratOr, with the will annexed, was a'so
appointed before the passage of the law, and
that consequently his right to recognition
could not be divested by subsequent leglsa-
tion, even if the act otherwise was app!l-
cable to this particular succession; that the
act in question WAS passed expressly 10 pro-
vide for responsible officer to take charge
of unrepresented SUGGESTIONS, and to take
care of the property until the heir appeared;
but that this succession was represented Dy
an officer. of a court from sister state,
present and ready to comply with the law,
and to give bond, who. as administrator,
with the will annexed, under the common
law, was similar to the heir in an in
testate succession under the civil law.
Mr.. Labatt also argued that by the terms
of the act, the Public Administrator was
bound to wait until the court determined
that the succession was unrepresented, ana
that it was necessary to appoint person to
administer; that not until then was the
Public Administrator to be appointed; that
be had no right Of his own motion to inter-
NEEDLE until so appointed. and his inter
ference in this form WAS unauthorized ana
officious.
Mr. New argued at length that the appli-
cant was asking more than was accorded to
our Owa citizens, that of administering
under his foreign appointment, without
bond; that the law was passed to protect
creditors. and should be enforced.
The court continued the case until this
morning, for Mr. New TO resume his argu-
ment. and to hear the reply OF the apph
cants counsel.
suit for Dam.ges-Demnzes Laid ut
$4,000.
Thomas Forda VS.. st. Leon Desty.-In
this case plaintiff has brought suit IN the
Fifth District Court for Si0 900 damages.
He alleges that on the seventeenth OF
February, 1870, he was arrested on a charge
of perjury, preferred against him by st.
Leon Desty, before George W. Sadler, First
Justice OF the Peace for the parish of Or
leans. He AYERS that the charge was false
and unfOunded; that it was illegal, mali
cious and vexatious, and made, as he verify
believes, for the double purpose of extract
ing money from him, and to iD ure him IN
mis- business and reputation in community
wherein, by uniform good conduct aud talr
dealing, he has always enjoyed the reputa-
tion of q good man and an honest citizen
Petitioner AYERS that after he had madere-
peated attempts to have the charge investi-
gated, it was dismissed without trial. He
charges that the accusation prevented him
from making trip to Texas, by which he
was damaged in the SUN of $4,000, and that
he is entitled to vindictive damages to the
same amount. making his entire claim Sl0,-
| 900, for which he asks Judgment. Braughn
x Ogden, plaintiffs attorneys.
United states Circuit Court.
| This court adjourned yesterday at twelve
| o'clock.
Sixth District Court.
| In the matter of the claim of General
| LoDgstreet against J. Marsh Denman, in
/ which the sum of $1,000 WAS claimed for an
alleged Illegal sale Of a carriage belonging
to the plaintiff, Judge Cooley yesterday rem
| dered decision, giving General Longstreet
| 4 judgment for the full amount claimed.
Eighth District Court.
| In the case Of Lizardi, transferred from
| the Fifth District Court to this court in
which motion had been made to retransfel
| the papers to the court in which it had
originated, Judge Dibble said that he would
hereafter deliver written opinion. He
would now dismiss the motion to retranster
Tine Chattanooga Railroad Case.
| Ochiglevich and Healy VS.. Chattanooga
| Railroad The argument IN this case came
up yesterday before Judge Dibbe, in the
| Eighth District Court.
Mr.. Thomas Allen Clark, on The part o.
the plaintiff, gave description of the
ancient limits of the city OF New Orleans
| The banks of the Mississippi river have
from time immemorial, been used as 8
quay for the landing of vessels. All the
| aliuvion or accretiou belongs to the city
and the question as to the proprietorship OF
| OF the city therein had long ago been set
tied by the Supreme Court. He quoted
| from seventh n. s., in which it was decided
that the banks of the river belong to tbe
public, aud the accretions may be laid of
! into squares and sold by by the city. Mr.
| Clark said there had never been any Discus
sion as to the rights of the city, except in
cases where parties claimed under the Uni
ted States. About thirty years ago the bat
; ture had become SO extensive that the Uni
| ted States brought suit for it, claiming thai
| it belonged to the public domain. MIR. Clark
referred to the opinion of the Supreme
Court of the United States in tenth Peters
! Mr. Clark claimed that the plaintiffs were
owners OF the land fronting the batture
and that the quay in front of Peters street
| had been appropriated to public use; that
the Legislature had no right to dispose OF
it; that the plaintiffs being subject to loss by
abrasion caused by the river, had the right
! to the accEetion deposited by it.
| He adverted to the act of the Legislature
| of February, 1868, comforting upon de-
PENDANTS their alleged rights. He referred
to the charter granted to the road by the
States of Alabama and Louisiana. He
argued that the privilege granted to the
railroad OF running a track or tracks along
! the levee, was destructive to commerce and
to the private rights of the plaintiffs.
Quoting from ten Peters, he said that the
decision therein reported WAS a greater
monument to the reputation of the illus
trious Judge Martin, than marble statue.
In that case Judge Martin had differed with
| q majority of his CO judges, and his opinion
had been affirmed by the Supreme Court o.
| the United States. Judge Martin held that
the accretion to the river belonged to the
| front proprietor, to wit: to the city. He
| Quoted the ordinance of 1887 in support oi
! his argument, which declares the banks OF
! the St. Lawrence and Mississippi rivers to
! be free to the public.
| He denied the right of the State, through
the Legislature, to divert the banks of the
river from their original uses, and dilated
! at considerable length on the vast com.
| merce OF the city of New Orleans, which re
| uured q large extent of land for purposes o.
| wharfage.
| Mr.. Clark said that since the institution
| OF this suit he had received communication
! from an owner of vessels running rom this
| port to Mobile, to the effect that the work
now being erected by the Mobile and Chat
j tanooga Railroad had 90 obsructed the
shores, that there was not single port o