New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-31
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court Declsions-The Eighth
Diet. let Court Sustained.


that the Eighth District Court is a constitu-
tional court.
Judge Howe delivered the opinion Of the
court to the effect that the act of the Legis-
lature of March 16, 1870, creating the Eighth
District Court, and giving it exclusive Juris-
dietion in matters OF iDjunctions, mandamus
and quo warrants was Constitutional ana
valid.
The opinion was given in the matter of
the mandamus applied for to compel Judge
Collens of the Seventh District Court 10
pass upon an issue raised before him, IN
which the POntchartrain and Chattanooga
Railroad Companies are the parties lltlgant.
The court also decided that in this case
the Injunction which had been granted to
the Pontcharrain Company by Judge
Collens could not be dissolved by him, but
must be passed upon by the judge OF the
Eighth District Court.
State ex rel A. Kearny vs.. The Clerk OF
the Seventh District Court-On application
Howe I. delivered the opinion of the
court.
The question presented in this case is,
whether defendant who has given BOND
for suspensive appeal must pay me clerk
of the lower court his fees for preparing the
transcript before he can require the latter
to deliver it.
Held, that there is no obligation on de-
fendant to furnish a clerk with preliminary
security, and there is no requirement that
defendant should pay the fees demanded IN
this case. Ordered, that the mandamus be
made peremptory and the clerk deliver the
transcript.
RehearinRs Refused.
In the following cases the Supreme Court
refused to grant rehearings:
Summers & Brannins VS.. e. Y. and Fran.
els V. HOlliugsWood.
Theresa Barnett vs.. Philip Burnstein.
Farrar VS.. Michand.
Eli Murchison VS.. C. Seller & Co., ct al, W.
W. Hill VS.. Ober, Atwater u Co.
Robert Young VS.. Ship Princess Royal.
Mary w. Henderson VS.. I. l.. Maxwell,
Sheriff.
Mary E. Taylor ct al. vs.. Henry D. Ealer.
A. Levi vs.. Corkern and wife.
Lewis Selby VS.. Friedlander Il Gerson.
Succession of E. Hardesty.
J. Viosca vs.. G. A. Weed.
Stephen Duncan vs.. Helm.
Among other rehearings refused by the
Supreme Court was one in the case OF
Brewer. which is important; as 1t definitely
sets at rest the assumed rights to discharge
all criminals incarcerated prior to a certain
date in this State.
Fourth District Court.
Henry Bazou, Commissioner of Citizens
Mutual Insurance Company, vs. ). Loroer,
A. 81. De Meza ct al.-This was a suit
against the Directors of the Citizens Mutual
Insurance Company for 1929 235 95.
The case occupied the attention OF the
court during nearly the whole OF last week,
and was finally decided on Saturday night,
the twenty-eighth instant.
Judge Theard charged the jury as follows:
| think the counsel on both sides in this case
have been equally wrong in the manner in
which they have endeavored to present this
case to you.
The counsel for plaintiff are wrong in rep
resen.ing the defendants as CRIMINALS.
They are gentlemen Of high standing; mer-
chants, whose commercial career IS without
a spot. The utmost that can be said OF
them is that they have been guilty OF negli.
ligence, but there is nothing in this record
to show that they have been dishonest.
The counsel for defendants are equally
wrong when they attempt to represent the
plaintiff as endeavoring to commit an act OF
extortion.
Mr.. Bazou is fulfilling duty which is
lust as disagreeable to him as ii is to you
or to me. He is the officer appointed by
the court, in due course of law, to hQuldate
the affairs of the company.
He represents The interests OF the creditors
of this unfortunate association. II he gets
a cent from these defendants, or from any
other source, he is by law brought TO &C
count for the same to this court, contra
dictorily with the parties interested.
You must, therefore, Danish from your
minds all insinuations tending to influence
your jud gfnent one way or the other.
The attempt also, to show that Bazou Oh
fered q compromise to Bidault, or that
Miltenberger attempted to compromise this
matter with Bazou, you must disregard TO-
tally. Bazou can do no act without the
sanction of the Court, and consequently, his
proposition, if he made any. would have
been without effect, without any ratltca'
ton.
AS to Miltenberger. it would be gross ab-
surdity to draw from his conduct, in con-
nection with this compromise, any conclu.
sion tending to establish his liability. He
was trying to buy his peace; that is all.
Now, gentlemen, when you come to exam
inc this case with your good common sense,
regardless of the arguments OF the counsel
on both sides, of the standing OF the parties,
on the charge of the Court, you will, after
all, come to the conclusion that II Is very
plain and simple case.
sYoa must dismiss the case as to those who,
in your opinion, have never had any con
nection with the Citizens Insurance Com
p.ny, and have never tolerated the use OF
their names in any manner. You must uls-
miss, also, as TO the heirs OF Gauche, Blols
and Nathan. who are innocent parties, ana
can not be held liable for the acts OF the de-
ceased parties.
But YOU must find verdict against those
of the defendants who were connected With
the company, or who have tolerated the use
of their names as directors. They are liable
in law But in finding that verdict, you must
bear in III ind the circumstances OF the case,
the honesty and good faith of these defend
ants, who, if the allegations OF plaintiff are
proved, in your opinion, are guilty or negh
gence, but who certainly have never know
ingly committed any wrong, and are them
selves the victims Of the insolvency OF the
company.
l am inclined to believe that, as warning
to other directors who may choose to be
negligent, the defendants ought, In order TO
satisfy the principle of law, to be each con-
demned to an exemplary damage and the
costs OF suit, and leave this matter to your
wisdom.
The jury brought in the following YER
dict:
We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and
assess damages as follows: First, costs OF
court; and secondly, twenty-five dollars
each against the following parties: J. Lor-
Der. j. l.. Nose, A. H. D'Meza, A. Milten-
berger, J. A. Stouse, A. Verloin de Gruy. I.
Avendano, o. Gaillard, A. Bidault, James A.
White, D. Bouligny; L. Grande. Further we
find verdict for the defendants.
sixth District Court.
J.G. Kreider vs.. city of New Orleans:
Plaintiff alleges that he was Mayor OF the
CITY of Jefferson at a salary of $500 year,
and that by the act incorporating the City
of Jefferson with the city Of New Orleans
the latter became liable for the debts OF the
former. He says that his salary for the ten
months preceding the consolidation OF the
new corporations, amounting to $500, is
yet unpaid. He sues for that amount.