New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-04-12
THE C0UETS.
Sup~eme Cours oe Louisiana.

and Associate Justices Taiiatero Howe and
Wyly. Absent: Justice Howell.
Tne following cases were dc'ded, by
Chief Justice Ludeling, refusing r-hearings,
to wit: Voorhies VS.. Harrisu, tutor;
Hebert VS.. Chartant, ct al; Betty vs. City
OF New Orleans; Hynes vs. Piice Jury,
parish OF Madison; Boston Betin Company
vs.. Simonds; Taylor Hurband :. Boedick
Boderhauseu; Letchford We. Pllce Jury,
parish of Pointe Coupee; Va Winkie
VS.. Police Jury, parish Of poine Coupee;
steamer General Quitman VS.. Pacard: Par
ham IL Blount vs. Ogle & Sewer y. Gordon.
In the case of the State eX rel. .Selden VS..
The Board of Drainage Commissioners, d
rehearing was granted.
State ex rel. Fagan. Ju1gmea affirmed.
Crescent City Slaughternouse Butchers
Benevolent Association. Ju1gmet aItrmeN.
Same w. s. j. Hodge. Attirna.
L. 5. b. & B. A. Of N. Q. VS. Brrhers' Be
nevoIept AS ISOLATION. Judgment reversed.
Imhau q Aycook VS.. Slaughterbuse Com
pauy. Reversed.
Butchers Benevolent Association vs..
Slaughterhouse Company. ReveBed.
By Judge Taliafero.- .-Su :cessioiot George
Kaiser. Affirmed. :
State ex rel. Fassman vs.. Jude Second
District Court Rule made absolte.
Fender vs.. N. c. Daigre ct al. Reversed.
By Judge Wiley.-Futorship OF Jane
Stokes. Appeal dismissed.
Zoe Sharkey vs. L. Barkersoi Appeal
dismissed.
N. Feldon VS.. eagle & Co. frdgment
affirmed.
Uter We. Dumontiel. Affirmed.
Hay VS.. Scott & Co. Affirmed.
By Justice Howe-Bein VS. Howell,
Williams d Co. Affirmed.
Kilbowme vs.. Frelseon (Wyly racused).
Judgment reserved.
Bills OF exception were teuderedbj Mr.. E.
BermudeZ and signed by Judge 3ible, III
effect, 10 wit: That the Judge et 2ropriG
naotu ordered the reiators objection TO the
validity Ofthe Judges appointment tricken
out OF respondents return, filed this
suit, and declined to allow reFporent to
offer testimony in support thereof. Other
grounds of exception were also rescved in
the bill signed by the. Judge. Afte argu-
ment, the case was continued unil this
morning at ten O'Clock.
Eighth DIstricE Court bible.
New Orleans, Mobile and Chatan ooga
Railroad Company VS.. City of New 'rieans.
In this case petition was filed yeterday,
in which plsintitFs aver that they Ire the
owners, in tee simple, Of all the land which
abut upon that portion OF the levee. .oatture
and wharf, in the city Of New Orlens, be.
gNttu tuc SLESCJ lhkd Ous UttNCG Liz
street and the Mississippi river, an from
Calliope street to the lower line, abot three
hundred and fifty-fve ftet below alliope.
and that they have the dominion OF ali said
property and its riparian rights.
Petitioners further aver that by7arioUs
acts Of the legislature they have boone a
body corporate for the construction of g
railroad running through the cityof New
Orleans, and that they are enclosng the
land so owned by them for the pupose OF
facilitating their business IS common car
riers. and that they are threatemd with
interruption by the authorities of ne city.
To this end, 50 that petitioners mag not be
interrupted in their business, theyprayed
that an Injunction be issued, reSraining
plaintiffs from interfering with theiroccupa-
ton Of said property in any manner.
Judge DiDble issued the writ as prayed
for, plaintiffs giving bonds in the sun Of
twenty thousand dollars.
Eigh'h District Court.
H. s. MCComo W. the New Orlean, Jack
son and Great Northern Railroad city OF
New Orleans, interveuor.- this c8se Mr..
J. R. Beckwith, City Attorney, Yesterday
filed supplemental petition of Intervention,
in which 1t is alleged that II. s. HcComt
has at no time ever paid TO any Ieson au-
thoriZed to receive the same, aryprice Oh
GOIeICtId-lbu lOl tl1C OOrOOu Va SsVSn
which he pretends 70 have purchsseC. Ths:
neither the city of New Orleans, nor any Of
its officers. have been rendered or Iaid the
sum OF $500, 600 for said stock; that tle Ordi.
nance of the city authorizing the sab Of the
stock was not legally promulgated, :nd tina,
W. S. Mount, late City Treasurer had DC
authority to sell the same.
IDtervenor claims that McComb nger ex-
ecuted the bond for 100000, as demanded
by the terms and conditions of the PRETENDED
ordinance authorizing the sale of he said
stock; that petitioner has no knowledge OF
the existence of said bond. and that 10 such
bond has been approved by any person hav-
ing auth hority to DO, and that McConb has
no right or title to the stock, but hdds the
same in wrong and fraud. Petitioner Further
alleges that there is reason to fear that Nc
Comb will make an unlawful and dishonest
use of the certificates of stock should they
come into his possegsion, by permitting hin,
to bond the same and carry them beyond
the jurisdiction of the court, or attempt to
ALLEVIATE them without regard to the writ OF
Injunction in this cause, in force against
him, and thereby subject the city to endless
litigation and irreparable injury. Where
upon, petitioner prays for writs and relief
as originally prayed for, and tLat this court
maintain and enforce its special order,
heretofore mSde c0mDan ling the said Nc
Comb to produce ana file in this court, both
of the certificates of stock described in the
pleadiDgs in this case, and that they remain
on file ard in the custody CT this court until
the final determination of the case.
William Henderson files an intervention
herein, setting forth that he is the holder
OF bond for $1,000, issued by the city to the
Jackson railroad, and that the stock of said
road is pledged by law Tor the redemption
of this and other bonds.
The case came up for trial yesterday, and
considerable skirmishing was done by the
lawyers, but no conclusion was arrived at.
Messrs. Hays & New, Of counsel for rela.
tor, excepted to the application of W. Hen
derson, to be allowed to intervene, on the
ground that no Intervention can oe allowed
III summary proceeding.
Mr.. J. r. BeCkwith, City Attorney, for In
tervenor, took rule reciting that Henry S.
McC0mb is in contempt of this court and
guilty of knowing and wilfull
herein issued, by urging and insist
ing upon the trial OF proceeding by
mandamus, instituted by him against the
railroad company, to compel it to transfer
the identical shares of stock, which by said
Injunction he is inhibited from transferring
or attempting to tranfer. McComb was or
dered under the rule TO show cause On the
seventeenth instant, why he should not be
punished for such contempt.
On motion of Hayes & New, Randolph
Singleton & Brown and Billings l. Hughes
q subpenG duces tecunl was issued, requiring
MayOr Flanders to bring into court the
bond of $500 600 executed by relstor in favol
of the Mayor, conditioned to maintain ttt
pledges in favor Of the bondholders who
may desire to convert them into stock Of tht
jackson Railroad.
Wrlts OF Mandamus ard Prohibition.
In the matter of the application OF Il. s
McComb for q writ of mandamus agains
the Jackson Railroad. commanding them Il
transfer on their books the 50, 600 shares O
stock lately sold by the city and purchased