New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-07


majority in the name of his five minor chill
dren.
RelatOr represents, that as the legal ad-
ministraior of his children, he had the right
to vote in their names upon the SAID reaO-
lution-their names being upon the books
of the company for the five shares owned
by them. -,
He asks mandamus. compelling the
Stockholders to abide by the will of the ma
jority, as expressed in the resolution of the
Seventeenth of August. Judge Dibble issued
an alternative mandamus, returnabie TINS
morning at ten o'clock.
State ex rel Samuel Smith & Co., vs..
Antoine Dubuclct, State Treasurer.-ln this
case petitioners show that they are bankers,
doing business in New Orleans, and that
they are holders and owners, for a valuable
consideration, of a certain cash warrant for
the sum of $40, l2O, drawn by the Auditor OF
the State of Louisiana, of which the follow
ing Is a copy:
STATE oP I-orisIASA,}
Auditors Office, August Is, 1910.
Warrant No. 252.
l certify that the sum of twelve thousand
one hundred and twenty dollars and =
cents is due by the State of Louisiana to 5.
A. Isaac in payment of 404 coupons of in
terest. due as specified on the reverse here
of. and do hereby direct that the Treasurer
of the State of Louisiana pay to the said
Isaac or order the sum of Sl2, ,l2O out Of
funds appropriated for tn at purpose.
Interest tax fund charge to account of
payment on State bonds. Sl2.l20 10.
JAMES GRAHAM, Auditor.
Petitioners show that the warrant was
indorsed by Isaac, the payee, and that they
purchased it in due course of commercial
dealing. Claimants presented the warrant
to Antoine Dubuclet, State Treasurer,
was refused. although there were funds in
the treasury specially applicable to that
purpose, and so made applicable by virtue
of the provisions of Act No 50 of the extra
session of the Legislature of 1870. The war
rant was duly protested before notary
public.
Petitioners aver that the refusal of the
Treasurer TO pay the warrant amounts to 4
denial of Justice. and they ask for a writ of
mandamus ordering the Treasurer to pay
the amount or show cause to the contrary on
a dav fixed. Judge Dibble issued the man
dalnu. returnable on Wednesday, Septem-
ber1 I.
This is one of the warrants alleged to have
been given in payment of forged coupons
and which came into the possession of the
| REALTORS without notice and in the regular
| course of business.
Louisiana National Bank Us. j. S. Walton.
! Administrator of Finance-In addition to
| the suit in this case, published III the RE-
PUBLICAN, Yesterday. supplemental petl-
| ton has been filed in which it is stated that
| the Louisiana National Bank. in addition to
| the warrants mentioned in the original pc
! tition, is the holder apd owner of thirteen
additional Metropolitan Police warrants
amounting to 1868 80, making an aggregate
| of Slli5-fOrty four OF sdld warrants being
| held by petitioner.
| Drays that order iSSIln that
| the Administrator of Finance receive all OF
| said warrants in payment of the taxes men
| toned: and that after due proceedings a
peremptory mandamus issue The man
| damu= was issued in the alternative as
prayed for.
Fourth District Couri.
Henry W. Lyon vs.. Byron Harris.-ln
| this case it is stated that i'll June. 1870,
! plaintiff entered into contract with Byron
| H. Harris to do business under the name of
| H. ". Lyon & Co., at No. III BarOnne
street. in the sale of looking glasses, picture
! frames. clocks, etc. said contract to cover
! all transactions made under q certain CON
| tract. dated February l6, 1870, and to can
| eel the said contract and stand III its place.
Petitioner shows that to a large extent
| said business consisted in selling their ar
ticlcs of merchandise to be sold in install
ments. and that said Harris was to have
out OF said business twenty-five dollars per
week and further twenty-five per cent of
| the profits, but TO take his risk OF twenty
five per cent of all losses.
| Petitioner further shows that in the
course OF said business said Harris has SO
managed the same as to lose large sums OF
| mOnev, the same being the capital Of the
irm and all furnished by petitioner: that
! he HAS neglected to make collections due
| the firm, or to give proper credit for cOllec-
tions made: that he has mismanaged the
| business to the injury Of petitioner, and is
| now endea vOring to further njure the said
! trade
Petitioner shows that il IS necessary that
the partnership be dissolved, and the affairs
thereof settled, though the contract re
ferred to was to continue for. say, two
years.
Petitioner pravs that the partnership be
| declared a an end, and that Judgment in.
say one thousand dollars, or such sum. as
| may appear to be due, be rendered III favor
| Of petitioner. with interest from judicial tie
! mand.
! Joseph Keller Va. W. II. Talbot.-This is
| 4 suit for the recovery of S6SS. balance of a
| claim of .$l20O for which plaintiff holds a
, promissory note, dated February 4, 1868,
| payable ninety days after date.
| Eleanor Mccormick. wife OF Frank Lane
| Dupree. VS.. her husband,-This is sut
| tions:
In the petition It is ayerred that on the
fourteenth of August 1860, at st. Louis,
| Missouri, petitioner married Frank Lane
| Duprea. then a resident OF said city. soon
| after their marriage they moved to New
| Orleans That her husband has never pro
| yided for her wants, and often abandoned
| her for months without makingsany prOyi-
sions Cor the necessaries ofpetitioner and her
| four children That on or about the tenth
of Nav. 1859, said 4. l.. Dupree. without
any notice whatever. abandoned the matri-
Inonlal Ciomicil and has never been heard
OF. notwithstanding the researches and in
Gtliries instituted by the deserted wife. It
is further alleged that Dupree has souan-
dered whatever his wife through her indus
trv and economy has been able to save.
Upon these representations, was ordered
bY Judge I'heard that petitioner be auther-
lied 10 institute and prosecute this s,iit
that the residence, No. 235 Delord street be
assigned her during the pending OF this suit;
that custody of her four minor children De
given her: and that curator Gd hoe be ap-
pointed to represent the absent defendant.
A reverend divine, vino was but a $3.50
preacher being called upon accidentally TOR