New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-10-16

THE COURTS.
Suit for Islander.

Suit for Slander.
In the Eighth District Court John Abadle.
and his wife Louise, have brought sui1
against John Hogan and his wife tor SoOVo
damages, for slanderous and mdecoroas
language, alleged to have been uttered by
Mary Ann Hogan, whereby the fair fame OF
Mrs. Abadie is supposed to have been DAM
aged
A Divorce Suit.
In the case of C. +. Wagner VS.. Maria c.
Hayner. his wife, Judge Dibble, OF the
Eighth District Court has granted decree
of divorce, in which the custody OF two
minor children is given to the plaintiff
Eighth District Court.
State ex rel John McGrath VS.. James c.
Houston. Assistant Register OF Noters-ln
this case, wherein Judge Dibble, on Monday
last. made a mandamus peremptory direct
ing defendant to register the relator as
voter. the respondent has filed an applica-
ton for an appeal to the Supreme Court of
the State.
State ex. rel. J. Hernandez VS.. b. +.
Flanders ct al.-In this case, published in
last Thursdays Pcayune, an answer has
been filed by City Attorney Lacey, in
which it is set forth that this court is with
out authority or jurisdiction to allow the
process or writ of manda1nus applied for:
this court, and every court within the State
of Louisiana, being expressly prohibited
from so doing by an act of the Legislature
entitled AN act to limit and restrict the
power of courts to issue orders or wrlts OF
mandamus," etc, approved March T. 1870.
Resolution No. l467, new series. OF the
Common Council OF the city Of New Or
leans, approved May l9, 1863 upon which
relator relies to maintain this proceeding, Is
without force and effect, and was and is
absolutely null and void, for the following
reasons:
l. The allowance of twenty-five per cent
additional upon the contract price of the
work to be done by the contractors, Col
han & Co., on Rampant street, from Canal
to Esplanade, was gratuity or free gift ON
the part of the city of New Orleans. which
the city was without the lawful power or
authority to bestOw.
,. AT the time the aforesaid resolution
was adopted and approved, not only public
interests, but the law of the State and the
ordinances of the city then in force. re
quired that all public works, materials or
supplies, susceptible of being put under
contract. the cost thereof exceeding $500,
should be sold by the Controller, at public
auction, to the lowest bidder. he giving a,le-
quate security: and such interests, statutes
and ordinances are opposed and palpably
violated by ordinance No. l469.
3. BY an act of the Legislature. it is pro-
vidcd that the Common Council Of the city
of New Orleans shall not have the power
to- release any contractor from strict COM
pliance with the conditions of his contract,
except as to an extension OF time and
this necessary restraint. imposed by law
upon the Common Council of the city OF
New Orleans, has been disregarded and
evaded by the resolution referred to-.
The certificate of indebtedness for
S4l3l 16. held by the relatOr. and upon
which, as an evidence Of Indebtedness on
the part of the city, he seeks to maintain
the present proceeding, can not be recog-
nzed as having any legal force or effect,
because
l. 1t is not embraced by resolution No
1867. That resolution simply extends to
the contract price of work to be done BY
the contractors, Colman & Co., on Rampant
street, between Canal and Esplanaie
While the certificate was issued upon the
Esplanade street contract.
>. No certificate could lawfully issue to
dover the twenty-five per cent allowed by
the aforesaid resolution, without being GER
Tilted by the City Surveyor and approved
by the chailmcn of the Committees Of
Streets and Landings and Finance.
3. The twenty-five per cent allowed
by the resolution was not tlue and payable.
and the certificate to cover the same could
not lawfully issue, until the work was com
pleted and the measurements of the City
Surveyor had, with view to his certiti-
eates and such completion and measure
snents respondents aver have never taken
place.
Respondents further show that they have
reason TO believe that great fraud upon
the city of New Orleans was sought to be
consummated at the time the certificates
aforesaid, including the certificate in CON
It"oversy, were obtained by the contractors.
Coleman & Co. This belief is based upon
the following facts:
The city's portion OF the estimated price
IOf the whole work under the contract for
Rampant street. from Canal to Esplanade.
can not exceed the sum of Sl4S.3il O.:
twenty-five per cent upon thar amount. all
that it can be pretended, resolution No.
l467 allowed. would be S37 .0S5 4s, and vet
certificates have been issued to the con
tractors under resolution No. 1867 to the
extent of S62,OSl lS, an excess of S24 9G5 20
over the amount allowed by the aforesaid
resolution.
Respondents require the rclator to show
not only that his certificate was issued upon
Rampant street contract, hut furthermore to
satisfy the court that it did not form q part
of the aforesaid illegal excess of S24, 995 20.
Respondents further aver that they are
ignorant of the circumstances under which
the relatOr acquired the certificate: but they
assert that this certificate is not a negotiable
For these reasons, respondents pray that
the writ OF mandamus applied for be re-
fused.