New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-30
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court.

leans, AuAiHlstIdIor Ol rlOAtlHS Dooe'
The argument in the mandamus ease o
Barton VS.. Bank Of New Orleans, Admins
traitor of the Floating Debt, On the question
whether the Administrator is, not bound Il
deliver bends to the holders Of certificate
at the minimum rate of seventy five PEE
cent, came up on Wednesday before Judg'
Dibble.
This argument was ably conducted by
Messrs. Bayne and Miller, for the relator
and Joseph p. Hornor, for the administra
tor and the city.
BY the relatOr it was maintained that thu
funding provisions of the charter left NJ
discretion to the bank, which is the Admin
istratOr Of the Floating Debt, to deliver t
the holders at certificates bonds at the rate
fixed by the law.
By the bank and the Mayor and City Ad
ministrators, it was argued that
l. Mandamus would not lie in such cast
since the passage of the act of 1870, abolish
ing this writ as a means of enforcing the
payment Of a debt by the city.
2 That the discretion of deciding upon
the rate at which the bonds should be ex
changed, and as to the time when such ex.
change should be made, places the bank
beyond the reach Gf IL mandamus.
g. That provision Of the charter places
these bonds beyond any process OF the
courts, makes them -seizable, and that
to allow this mandamus to 60 to them would
be to eyaale and render of no effect said pro
vision.
Judge Dibble, reserving bis final judg-
ment ON the ease, intilkateG-
THAT the act abOlishing or modifying
the writ of mandamus as to the city did not
apply to this case.
: That if such an act we're intended to be
SO applied, he should not hesitate to pro-
nounce it unconstitutional, as involving O
violation of the obligation of contract.
3. That the discretion referred to as ex-
empting party from a maiidamus meant a
sound and Judicial discretion, and not a
mere arbitrary freedom of will.
4. That tho provision exetnpting the bonds
from seizure certainly did not apply to a
process to enforce duty OF public officer
imposed by the law.
The Judge stated that he would write out
his case in full week after next.
State ex rel. McGinty VS. James Graham,
State Auditor.
State ex rel DOlhOnde VS.. same. George
n. Andre and Patrick Frizzell, intervenor.
These cases were Consolidated, and came
up for examination yesterday.
The origin of these controversies was the
question as to who were the legal owners OF
certain certificates of indebtedness issued
in payment of work done on. the public
leNceS. 1uc ludtNtH IiCiStoioAO cSoA
fully reported.
Judge C. NJ. Enmerson being sworn,
said:
Twas called in by Mr. Graham, Auditor.
after the injunction was issued in the case
of McGinty and DolhOnde vs.. Graham, Nos.
2ll and 2l2 of the docket Of this court. Mr..
Graham called upon me to obtain an order
for rule to dissolve the injunction. l
think that was the nature of the rule. 1t
appeared that the order for the injunction
had the effect to tie up all the funds in the
hands of the Auditor, and after converse
ton in relation to the matter, stated, or
intended to state, that he would be at lib
erty, or it would be safe for him to disre-
gard the injunction for the excess over the
amount claimed, and l ordered the rule to
issue. l will now state, that from an OBJ
servatiOn Mr.. Graham 1naae, as he left the
Office, that he might have understood it
differently. He may have supposed that l
gave it as an opinion that he might disre-
gard it for the whole amount
The court took the matter under advise
ment.
State of Louisiana ex rel. II. r. Whitney
VS.. James Graham. Auditor.-The plaintiff
in this case, through his attorneys, Hays &
New, filed petition yesterday, in which it
is set forth that he is the holder and owner
of warrant drawn by James IL. George,
Parish Judge of the parish of st. Helena,
to his own order, and Endorsed in blank, on
James Graham. State Auditor. for the sum
of $3.50. Petitioner represents that the
Auditor refuses to draw his warrant for this
sum on the State Treasurer, and prays for a
writ of mandamus. The nlandamus was
issued, returnable tomorrow.
The jefferson City Improvements Case.
H. H. Romine vs. J. X. West, Administra-
tor of ImprOvements.-In this case it was
announced that X. King Cutler would de-
the relator, but on motto 10 of Mr.. Cutler,
who is engaged in an important case in the
parish of St. Charles, his final argument
was postponed until Wednesday, the
twelfth of October.
Seventh District Court.
The Magazine Street Railroad case
James H. Young vs.. John Steib; same VS.,
Charles Lauer; same vs. B. Saloy.-ln
these cases three separate petitions have
been filed, as follows:
To the Hon r Wharton Collens. Judge of the
Seventh District Court fct the Parish Of Or
leans:
The petition of James II. Young. of the
parish Of Orleans, with respect represents: :
That one John Steib, resident of the
CITY of New Orleans, without any right or
authority thereto, pretends to be the holder
and owner of certain prpmissory note for
the sum of $4,000, drawn by one Joseph
Kaiser, individually, and as President of
the Jefferson City Railroad Company, dated
New Orleans. July !, 1876, and payable
three years after date to their own order, with
eight per cent interest perIannum from date
until paid, the said note havf ing been indorsed
by said Kaiser individually andi as presi-
dent. That said John s Steib further pre-
tends, for the payment bf the aforesaid
note, together with interest which might
thereon accrue, attorneys fees. etc. to have
and hold mortgage upon the Magazine
Street Railroad, located in the city of New
Orleans, and extending from Toledano
street to Joseph street, on Magazine street,
in the Sixth District of said city, together
with all the buildings, stables, rolling
stocks, cars, mules, mater ials. implements,
etc, to said railroad belonging or any way
appertaining.
That said John Steib thus pretending to
be the holder and owner OF said note and
mortgage, has, in this honorable court, IN
suit entitled John Steib vs.. Magazine Street
Railroad Company of Jefferson City, and
numbered 1850 on the docket, instituted
proceedings against said Magazine Street
Railroad Company upon stsid note and mort
gage, and has obtained "a writ OF seizure
and sale directing the Civil Sheriff of the
parish of Orleans to seize and sell said
Magazine Street Railroad together with all
the rights, privileges, franchises, etc., OF
every kind, name and na3ure, to said COM
pany belonging; also, all the buildings,
stables, cars, mules, rolling stock, materials
and all appurtenances to said road apper-
tanning: al Of which will more fully and at
large appear by reference to the proceed
ings in said suit number $3.50, on the docket
Of this court.
That under and by virtne of said writ of
seizure and sale, the CIVIL Sheriff of the
parish of Orleans has seized and advertised
for sale. and will proceed to sell, unless re-
stra;nnH NV a writ of Injunction, the said