New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-25
THE COUKTS.
Eighth District Court.


+ urer for Sl000 being the amount OF his salary
as Parish Judge for Bienville, for the quar-
ters ending the thirty.ti first of December,
1869 and March 81, 1870.
Judge Dibble yesterday made the man
damus peremptory. the respondent to pay
all COSTS The difficulty in this case seems
to have been that another person had
claimed the office and drawn the salary Of
Parish Judge of 'Bienville, on warrants
issued by Auditor Wickliffe.
State of Louisiana eX-rel Police Jury of
the parish of Jefferson, right bank. VS.. city
of New Orleans-In this case petitioners
represent that on the twenty-ninth OF Janu-
ary, 1866, they, by their president, Gustave
Leroy, in connection with the Mayor OF the
city of New Orleans entered into contract
with Philip Dunn, by which they leased to
him the privilege OF running terryooat
across the river, from the head OF jackson
street to Gretna, for a term of ten years,
from the first Of January, 1866, Tor the sum
Of SI20 year. BY the terms OF the agree
ment petitioners were to have Onetnlrd OF
the amount, OF which $40 are now due by
the CITY, the autho rites thereof having col
lected the whole amount due. Petitioners
ask a mandamus, compelling the city au-
thorities to pay him the amount specified.
Judge Dibble issued an alternative writ OF
manCamus, returnable on Thursday, the
tWenty-siXth instant.
Fourth District Court.
William Francis obtained writ of habeas
corpus, and had produced i'll court servant
girl, named Ellen. about fourteen years old,
who had been, as alleged, forcibly and ur
lawfully abducted from his employ by mu-
latto man, named Nelson. 1t appeared in
evidence that Nelson was the godfather of
the girl, and as she expressed desire to go
with him, the proceeding was dismissed.
Seventh Distrsct Court.
Arthur Kidd vs. Washington Fredericks
This is a suit for $40 900 damages. Peti-
toner alleges that on the twentieth of June
last, while coming home from church, he
was audaciously and wiifally slandered by
the defendant. and abused and threatened
in presence Of his daughter, then eleven
years of age, and was called by defendant
d d thief, ID murderer, and other
infamous aud vulgar names, by which he
w2s Inundated, di5honored, and detained in
the public streets, in the presence OF his
daughter.
Eighth District COurt-The Board Of
school Directors.
The case of the Board of Directors Of
Public Schools for the city of New Orleans
VS.. Z. BermudeZ ct al, came up in the
Eighth District Court yesterday, TO which
time it had been continued for final disposi-
ton to quash the iDi nctioD, and on the eX-
ception that the petition contains no cause
OF action. Judge Voorhees, appeared for the
'trespassers and wrong-doers" Gas the de-
PENDANTS are styled), solitary and alone,
bereft of the aid of the two defendants who
on the first day filed his soul with ardor by
their fiery eloQuence, and encouraged him
in his hopeless and, perhaps, thankless task.
Messrs. Lacey and Butler. and A. A. Atocha,
represented the plaintiffs. The same un-
founded arguments of the first day were re-
peated by the counsel for defendants, and,
their being nothing urged that required
serious consideration, the counsel for the
board, with few remarks. submitted the
case to the Judge, who took it under advise
ment, and will no doubt decide at an early
day.
State of Louisiana ex rel. Jules Delery
VS.. Register of Couveyances ct al.-In this
case Judge Dibble has rendered the follow
ing decision:
The relator seeks to obtain writ of man
damus to compel the Register of Convey
ances for the parish of Orleans to cancel and
erase a certain contract or agreement re-
corded in his office.
The petition alleges that relator, in August,
1868, entered into written agreement for
the future lease of q plantation belonging to
relator; that the conditions upon which the
lease was to operate have not happened and
will not happen; that the said contract was
TeCOTueu anu now etauuS III tuo way VI
disposal Of the property, and that manda-
mus is necessary to compel the Register to
so cancel and erase the record of the agree
ment as aforesaid.
Joseph Elliott, the one with whom the
relator entered into the lease or contract, is
made party to these proceedings.
The Register responds that he has no
interest, and is ready to obey whatever Or
ders may be directed to him by the Court.
10 nfc m
the preceding by mandsmus. on the ground
that the validity of his contract with re-
spondent can not be inquired into in this
form. He denies that the lease or agree.
ment is abrogated.
1t will be readily seen that the Register of
Conveyances is not the real respondent;
that the contest is between Delery, the rela.
tor, and Elliott, and involves the existence
of contract to lease a plantation. The
relator alleges but Elliott denies.
The writ of mandamus ought never to be
awarded in order to settle private dispute
between two citizens. The proceeding is
necessarily summary and should, therefore,
be used with great caution. 1t only lies to
compel an officer or a person to perform
some specific duty attaching to his Office or
place, and about which he has no discre-
tion. 1t was never intended to go to aa
officer who is willing to do the thing re-
quired.
1t is not one of the duties of the Register
of Conveyances to erase from the records of
his office reciprocal contract recorded
there without the consent of both contract
ing parties. He can not be compelled by
mandamus to perform an act which does not
attach to his place.
But it will be answered that the other
contracting party has been cited and is be-
fore the court. The reply is apparent. His
rights under the contract, whose erasure is
sought, can not be passed upon in SUM
mary proceeding; he is entitled to full ten
days to answer, and may desire the interpo-
sition OF a jury, never admitted in summa-
ry proceedings, except in contests for
Office.
If it could be made to appear that the
agreement or contract was null, as by the
consentipg act of both parties thereto, or
by decree of court, then the Register
might be compelled to erase the same by
mandamus.
There is even no allegation or proof in th0
case that the Register ever refused to cancel
the lease.
From these considerations it is clear that
the writ ought not to issue.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and de-
creed that the peremptory writ of mandamus
prayed for be refused, and the petition of
the reiator dismissed, at his costs.
The Old and New Board Of Assessors.
In the Sixth District Court, the old Board
of Assessors having enjoined the new Board
from proceeding to copy the assessment
rolls, and rule for contempt having been
taken against the new Board for disobe-
dience to the injunction. Judge Cooley de-
cided that no contempt had been shown,
and the rule was discharged.
Sixth District Court.
The Jackson Railroad Case-In the case
of G. T. Beauregard and others against H.
S. WcCnmh and others cnmmenced in this