New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-09
THE COURTS.
Union Bethel Church Case,

James johnson ct al VS.. Charles II
Hughes.-A petition was filed in the Eight
District Court, yesterday, by James John
| son and James SOutherner through theiI
attorneys, Robert Dalton and James C
Walker, showing that petitioners are origi
nal incorporators of the Union Bethel
Church, of the African Methodist Episcopal
Church of this city.
They allege that the harmony of divine
service and sacred worship in the said
church, as well as the peaceful assembling
| OF the congregation thereof, are continually
disturbed and interrupted by certain dis
| affected, turbulent and seditious member of
said church, one Charles II. Hughes, who
| falsely pretends to be the pastor thereof,
and who, without any right or authority
whatever, and even by means of actual
violence usurps the pulpit and breaches to
the congregation, notwithstanding the re-
mOnstrances of petitioners and all the other
incOrpOratOrs.
1t is alleged that in this way Hughes ex-
cludes, hinders and prevents the lawfully
elected and chosen pastor, Rev. William
FOust, from preaching to the congregation
and from discharging his duties as pastor
Moreover, petitioners represent that the
unlawful acts of said Charles H. Hughes
cause them and the congregation irreparable
injury, and seriously affect the good name
and fame of the Union Bethel Church"
and that, unless prevented by Injunction.
tire said Chares II. Hughes will continue
and persist in usurping the pulpit and the
privileges of pastor, and prevent the Rev.
William Foust from preaching to the con-
gregation.
An injunction is asked for, and thereupon
Judge Dibble issued an order that defendant
show cause, on Wednesday, the twentieth
OF July, why an injunction should not issue.
Seventh District Court.
Margaret Hickey VS.. Michael Gerpon.-In
this case, Hon. A. G. Brice acting as Judge
adj hoe, the rule taken by the defendant
against the plaintiff, to show cause why a
suspensive appeal should not be allowed to
the Supreme Court, came up for trial, and
on hearing the pleadings and evidence, the
court took time to consider.
The st. james Chapel Case.
st. james Chapel, African Methodist
episcopal Church VS.. E. Zemar ct al.-This
case was called for trial, yesterday, in the
Eighth District Court, and continued over.
church were present in the court room.
A SANDER Suit-DnmagesI Laid MT SOS. 00O.
Norman b. Cook has brought su;t in the
Sixth District Court, Judge Cooley. in
which he claims of William Davis da1naoes
for SANDER in the sum of $4,000
Petitioner AYERS that for the past TWENTY
five years he has been citizen Of the c;tv
of New Orleans, doing mercantile bns;.
ness therein, and that during that time be
has always borne good credit and his
character for honesty and integrity has
always been irreproaehable and above sus-
picion. He AYERS that he has large family.
mainly dependent upon his exertions
for their support, and that to himself and
them his good name is matter of great
concern.
He alleges that about the twelfth of ApriI
last, while in the auction store of Meesrs
Montgomery Bros, a place of public resort
and in the presence of a great number of
persons, the said William Davis, with the
malicious intent of injuring petitioner in the
estimation of the community, publicly in
suited him by calling him thief, a swindler
and rascal, and that, short time prior to
the occasion referred to, in the auction store |
OF Hoffman g. Marks, the defendant also |
applied to him like approbious epithets in |
the presence of a number of persons.
Petitioner AYERS that said Davis, in max |
ing use OF such language, was actuated by |
a malicious design of depriving him of his |
good name and credit, and Of preventing
him from making his livelihood. Petitioner
says that the conduct and speech of the de-
lendant rs aforesaid, has caused him dam
age in the cum Of 81, 900, for which he aaks
Judgment.