New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-28

NEW ORLEANS, TUESDAY, JUNE g. 1870

six slaughterhouse cases should await tho
decision Of the State courts in the Pagan
case.
The Attorney General testified that it was
his understanding that he would take no
action against the defendants in the Pagan
case until after the decision Of the Supreme
Court of the State. He suspended action
because he had been eDjoined himself in
the case in the Third District Court.
The case was continued over until this
morning.
Eighth District Court-Jemerson City
Riot Case.
John Purdon VS.. City of New Orleans
In this case plaintiff claimed damages for
personal injuries received at a riot in JEFF
ferson City, in April, 1868. On an excep-
ton by the defendant that there was no
cause of action, Judge Dibble dismissed the
exception, and held that the city of New
Orleans was liable to pay the obligations of
the late City of Jefferson upon due proof
that damages had actually been incurred.
There are quite number of suits of SINH
lar character now pending for damages, all
of which will have to lie over to the next
term of the court for the want of time.
sixth District Court.
Judge Cooley yesterday delivered the fol-
lowing decision:
Rose Cammack vs.. Arrowsmith & Mag
gett.-The plaintiff claims title to some pro.
perty on Canal street, in the rear portion of
original grantee down to the present day.
The lots claimed are part of the Mccarthy
tract, which was confirmed to him.
The defendant claims title to the same
land. but in the pleadiDgs set up shows no
specific title whatever. The evidence he
Introduces in support OF his claim is, to
some extent, contradictory. and. in my
opinion, he has failed to make out any
defense whatever. One part OF the
claims under d'Hebecourt. The fgurative
plots and maps of the locality. in connec-
ton with the testimony of the surveyors,
show very clearly that the land which
originally belonged to d'Hebecourt, is not
even near that which is claimed by the plain.
tiff in this suit. One surveyor estimates
thai it is half mile, and the other surveyor
says it is three-f0urths OF a mile from the
land claimed by the plaintiff to the nearest
point of the land of d'Hebecourt.
The land claimed By the plaintiff is part of
that triangle known rs the Canal property,
belonging to the old Mccarthy possession,
and although the original Mccarthy conces-
sion was a great deal swept away by de-
cision of the Supreme Court in the Pontalba
case, that triangular piece of land was left
intact by it, and McCarthy's title was con-
uTmeQ 10 tnaIs
The defendant sets up another title under
the Monleon concession. By the maps and
the testimony of the surveyors, it is shown
that the Monleon concession is considerably
to the south of the Mccarthy line, and con.
sequently does not form part of the Nc
Carthy grant at all.
1t appears that Arrowsmith-for what
purpose, I don't know; l can merely i'm
agine-probably to raise money. sold this
land to somebody, and this somebody gave
him mortgage notes which could be put on
the market for discount. But in the various
sales he made he recites the derivation of
his own title differently in each one.
In the lands cold to Meggett, Januaty 9,
1869, he claims title under d'Hebecourt.
But finding in the course of the testimony
that the claim under the d'Bebecourt con-
cession would not do because it was little
too far from the land claimed by the plain.
tiff he seems to have got hold of the Mon
leon concession, because that was nearer to
it, and he pretends to q title under Monleon.
But neither the Monleon nor the d'Hebe-
court concessions give him any claim to this
land. Neither the Monleon nor the d'Hebe-
court concessions are included in the
Mccarthy grant.
Therefore there must bejudgment in favor
of the plaintiff for the land claimed, and
against both defendants.