New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-18
THE COURTS.
Suit Under the Civil Kfghts HI

SuIL AECEF the C1vkl hIREts HI iA.
Louis D. Larieu VS.. F. Dumonteil.-
trial of this case. which vas commenced
the Fourth District Court on Monday, occ,
! pied the whole of yesterday. The jurol
| sworn in the case were Samuel Thompso
| (oreman), Frederick ScherteT. J. o. Fallol
Philip Huth, Charles Deving, John NJ. Che
| ter and Michael Taney. white men, and
b. Love, 7. Bounce, A. L. Augustin, Lou
Martin and William Preston, coored mel
Upon the conclusion of the testimony th
counsel for the parties occupied about 81
hours in making their speeches.
Judge Theard charged the jury as follows
judge, in dealing out justice, ought t
rise above the prejudlces OF races and color
them from his mind; otherwise he wOul
be unworthy of the trust which societ
has placed in his hands.
You are acting as judges, gentlemen, an
you must not be controlled or governed b.
your prejudices if you have any, and yol
must with impartiality, decide the question
without regard to the color or social stand
ing OF either Of the parties. If the plain
tiff Is entitled to the right which he claims
you must, without hesitation and withnu
fear, recognize his right, conscious Of tht
high dutywnich devolves upon you.
But if you think the law under which he
of two other sacred rights, the right of lb-
erty and that of property, equally guaran
teed by the constitution Of the United
States and that of Louisiana, then you
must also. without fear or hesitation, respec,
his pretensions, because the statute under
which he claims is unconstitutional.
advise you to disregard al the technical
points raised in the course of these pro
ceediDgs, and as men Of heart and courage,
to face the main question-the question OF
law-and decide il. If you are of opinion
the plaintiff is entitled to his demand.
think however, that in valuing the damages,
you must take into consideration the cir
cumst4nces connected with this case, its
novelty, the prejudices of a whole population
against the provisions of new enactment,
which had not yet been communicated to
the defendant and his great loss of money,
possibly his ntter ruin, if these provisions
are carried into effect.
You must aso consider whether there can
seriously be any injury in the fact that q
man is refused anything because he is q
man Of color.
Now that all civil and political distictIons
have been abolished; now that the co'ored
man can aspire to the highest position in
the country, how can he be hurt by being
designated as Man of color?
But If you think proper; if you are of
DpiGinn that the Law under which this &C.
ton is brought is valid, you can decree
exemplary damages.
The plaintiff, l presume, is more desirous
Of seeing the principle decided, than of Sc.
curing heavy damages. This matter is left
altogether to your wisdom.
The jury then retired and the court took
/ recess until six O'Clock. Upon the re-
lssemb ing Of the court, the jury reported
II at thpv III not O uariint
md after few remarks by the Judge, they
yere sent back to deliberate. Judge Fheard
informed them that they might render
ealed verdict al any time before ten o'clock
n the morning and receive their discharge
rom the Sheriff; but in the event they
ouid not agree, they would be finally dis
harged upon the meeting of the court this
corning. A. P. Field, $. Be'den and E.
'illeul, attorneys for plaintiff, and A. a.
.tocha, and Hornor q Benedict, for de-
endant.
u't Angafnst the CitY-s2O, Dam-
ages Claimed.
Thomas Hardy yesterday brought suit in
he Eighth District Court, alleging that on
er of the Metropolitan police Of New Or
.aDs and Jefferson, and that in a riot that
len took place in Jefferson City. he was |
lot in the arm and damaged $40 coo. He !
Vers that the Mayor and Council of the !
ty of jefferson made no effort to Quell the |
OF, and the town became therefore liable |
IT all the damages done by the rioters. He |
!eges that by the act of annexation the |
ty of New Orleans became liable for the
ebts of Jeffrson City, and hence this suit.
ranghn and Ogden, of counsel.
Eighth District Court.
J. r. Heard brings suit against James
raham, State Auditor, for the amount of
S quarterly salary, due the thirty first of
acember and the thirty first of March last,
Parish Judge of the parish of Iberville.
e asks that mandamus issue, directing
tendant to warrant on the State Treasurer
r the amounts due him. Judge Dibble
sued the mandamus, directing defendant
ow cause to the contrary, on Tuesday, the
enty fourth instant. Cotton & Levy, of
uhsel.
Tho jackson Railroad G se.
In the case of General G. T. Beauregard
al. VS.. h. S. McComb ct AL, Judge Cooley
sterday rendered decision dlsmissing
injunction sued out by the plaintiff, on
e face of the pa oers.
Judge Cooley said:
A motion is made to set aside the iniunc-
N on the ground that the allegations in
petition did not authorize any ipiunc-
N, except one to restrain H. S. MCCOmb
certain other parties from proceeding
process of law to have their rights set
d. The rule is predicated on the idea
1t the Legations IN the petition author
d nothing else.
have carefully examined the petition.
ey set out with the allegation that Nc
NIB obtained an injunction from the
I1lstr ial, s,,,, /
,vented an election from being held for :
ectOrs OF the railroad on the day fixed by !
The charter provides if this election is not !
d on that day on account of the absence ,
q requisite nun Der Of stockholders, then :
shall take place on the succeeding Mon ,
7. 1t is alleged McCOmb fraudulently 9
lceived and originated these Judicial pro- :
dlngs for the purpose of preventing |;
election. :
hat with that view he maintained his
1nction in the Eighth District Court, thus
venting an election until the next Mon "
after that hXed by law for holding an t
ction the regular day. y
hat on that day, late in the course of
day, he appeared in the Eighth District h
lrt and dissolved the injunctlOn; that it h
pened to be preconcerted measure on v
part with view to having On that day f,
b his friends sole possession and con- i
of the election. q
seems to me that there may be good h
Sc for an injunction in equity to pre- il
t these parties from taking possession of h h
franchises and rights which they have
aimed or seem to have obtained through .,
influence of the measures such as are ~ q
aiIed in the petition. -,
ut it is equally evident to me that the +
ooject-the only idea Of the petition in W
case-was one to prevent McComb q,
n proceeding by law, in the courts of "
State, to enforce whatever rights or Of
tever pretensions he might claim un- II,
The election alleged to have been held A
the third Monday in April. The Pc
n evidently was drawn up in that
| in