New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-06
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court.

Louisiana NatlOna! Bank VS.. j. :. Walton,
Administrator of Finance. In this case
the petition shows that the bank Is the
holder of twelve Metropolitan Police war
rants, amounting to SOL 46.
1t is stated that the bank is assessed for
$4,000 worth OF real estate, the taxes on
which, for the year 1868, at one and a half
per cent, under the apportionment made
by the Board Of Metropolitan Police Com
missioners, amount to S2lO0.
1t is alleged on the part of the bank that,
under the law, the Administrator OF Fl
nance is bound to receive said warrants in
payment of said taxes, and that he has re-
fused TO do so. 1t is further alleged III the
petition that the bank is entitled. under the
law, to pay four-tenths (25ths) of the taxes
due bv it, in said warrants Petitioner
shows that the total amount of revenue
from taxes for the year 1868 was 81 800. 900
1t is alleged that the refusal of the defend
ant amounts to Il denial Of justice, and asks
that a mandamus issue to enforce his rights
Judge Dibblc made the 1nandamus alter
nativeiy relurnabe ON the seventh instant
Francis Aahan VS.. Antoine Dubucict.
In this ease plaintiff alleges that he is the
owner OF two certain warrants. numbered
2o2J and 2026, respectively. issued by the
Auditor, i'll favor of J. A. Klein. for stereo-
type plates OF the Twenty ty-srcond Louisian.s
Annual Reports-tle said warrant No
2~25 being for the sum OF fifteen hundred
and wcnty-three dollars and fifty cents, and
No 2G26tor fifteen hundred and twcnty-three
dollars both issued Oh July i5, 1863.
Petitioner further alleges that he allowed
&. VI. Nicklitfe to have possession of said
warrants in January, 1870, tor the sole plir-
pose of exhibiting them to a committee
appointed to investigate charges against
him, that the said Wickliite was to have re-
turned said warrants to petitioner but
i
sought 10 dcfraud him bv embezzlno
the same, and teioniously depriving him
thereof.
Petitioner fears that the said Treasurer
may take up. pay. and cancel the said war
rants, when presented to him for payment.
unless restrained by an injunction from this
honorable court.
Wherefore he prays that a writ of iniunc-
ton issue enjoining ana restraining him
from paying, taking w or canceling said
warrants, with bonds. money or otherwise,
to any party not coming from and anthor-
lied by the petitioner.
Judge Dibble granted the Injunction.
State eX rel. Tony Lafon VS.. John S. Wal
ton, Administrator of tinance.-In this case
relator represents that he is the holder and
owner OF two warrants. amounting to
S25i SO. which We're issued in payment of
the salaries of officers. employees and mem
Sents that he owes the city of New Orleans
for taxes due on his real estate for the wear
1S66. assessed at SIC, ,00o, and that said taxes
amount to SlGIS Is. He states that the Adj
minlstrat0r of Finance is bound by law to
receive IN payment OF said taxes the said
warrants, TO an amount not exceeding the
apportionlnent made by the Board of Ne
tropolitan Police Commissioners upon the
city OF New Orleaus for the year 1869 1t is
l1.r. -1,,t Iktfr
about SSOU.0OD, and that relator is entitled
by virtue of the law to pay ninetv-eight cents
on Sloo OF said taxes due by him in said
warrants: that the rate at which the said
taxes were levied is one and Il half per cent,
or 81 % upon each SlGO OF value for rhe
ordinary tax, and threc-fourths Of one per
cent for the police, and oue-eighth of one
per cent for the City Park tax.
Relator represents that the total amount
of the revenues of the city Of New Orleans
for the year 1863 amount to about $4,000, COO
1t is further represented that the Admin
lstrator OF Finance refuses to receive said
warrants, or any portion thereof, in pay
ment OF said taxes due by relator, and that
relatoT has no remedy by ordinary legal pro-
ceedings, and that a writ OF mandaInus is
necessary to protect his rights.
Relator prays that a mandamus issue com
j. S. Walton, Administrator OF
Finance, to receive said warrants in part
payment of the taxes due bv petitioner. OF
show cause to the contrary on Wednesday,
the seventh instant. Judge Dibble issued
the mandamus as prayed for.
Fourth District Court.
A. Couture VS. p Mallard-In this case
plaintiff sued defendant for $500 damages
tor carelessly setting up a valuable Venetian
looking glass. which consequently fell and
was broken.
Defendant has filed an answer. excepting
to plaintiff right of action. on the follow
ing grounds:
The answer AYERS that the allegations in
plaintiffs petition are vague and indefinite,
and that the action is barred bv the pre-
scription of one.year. Further answering,
defendant says that, if the accident alleged
III the plaintiffs petition did happen, it was
entirely owing to the fault carelessness and
want of proper attention on the part of the
plaintiff.
Respondent AYERS he did put the looking
glass in the place where he was instructed
to put it. in a workmanlike manner, and if
the accident really happened, il was owing to
the carelessness OF some person in the house
And assuming the character of plaintiff
in Intervention, defendant claims damages
in the sum of $500. He AYERS that this suit
brought against him by August Couture is
and veyatiOnS, and was brought
for the purpose of iniuring him in his busi-
ness; that the proceedings was made public,
and printed in the daily papers, thereby
causing him heavy damages: that the peti-
ton falsely and maliciously alleges that re
spendent is incompetent in his trade and
profession. and does not possess the qualiti-
cation and capacity which entitle him to
public patronage and confidence, thus wan
tonly infiicting upon him damages as above
set forth He therefore asks Judgment for
the amount claimed in reconyentiCn.
General James McCleery, the Republican