New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-20

videa.
And upon such oath being taken and such
bond being given, the parties to the ABOVE
entitled and numbered causes are hereoy
required to put the said sequestrator anu
receiver in immediate possession OF the sad
property, rights and effects, to be Dy MN
managed and accounted for ACCORDING 70
law: And upon failure or refusal OF said
parties to do so, it is hereby made the duty
of the Sheriff of the. parish OF orleans,
without any delay, to place the sara i seques,,
traitor or receiver IN possession VI 'no s"io
| property, rights and effects.
Eighth District Court--Lottery TICKET
Case.-Judqe DibbIe's Decision.
The Louisiana State Lottery Company vs.
A. Richoux ct als.-The Louisiana State
Lottery Company, incorporated by an act OF
the Legislature. which became a law
| Auoust H. 1868, asks for writs Of injunction
AGAINST the several defendants to forbid
their vending other lottery tickets than
those issued by plaintiff, because such vend-
ING is in violation of the exclusive privilege
granted plaintiff by the act aforesaid.
The defendants were required by the rule
nisi to show cause why the writs should
not issue.
They appeared and urged that they ought
not to be enjoined. l. Because the pre-
tended legislative act set up by plaintiff is
no law, it not having been signed by the
Governor and it not appearing from the
published act that it otherwise became a
law-this is in violation of article siNty-siX
of the constitution.
2 Because the act so set up by the plain
tiff confers no such exclusive privilege as
claimed; it does not meet the requirements
of article ia of the constitution, which re-
quires that every law shall express its OBJ
ject or objects in its title"
g. Because the said statute violates ar
- IN firr
the said company from taxation.
a. Because the attempt to prevent these
defendants from vending foreign lottery
tickets, or devices, is a regulation OF com
merce and the act, therefore, violates sec
ton eight, article one, of the constitution OF
the United States
s. Because the act in question provides
another remedy for the plaintiff by action
for DANA es, if defendants are proceeding
in violation thereof and, therefore, that
plaintiff is not entitled to have the wrlts as
prayed for.
In the first place, the objection that there
is no law because the act produced was not
signed by the Governor seems frivolous.
The act is promulgated in the official publ
cation of the laws, and bears certl1cate
by the Secretary of State that it became a
law without the signature of Governor, by
reason of the lapse Of five days, as provided
in article siXty-six of the constitution. This
certificate is sufficient. In the official pub
Ii cation of the laws of Congress the sigma
lures of the Speaker, the Fice-President and
President are not given; only date OF ap-
prevail and, in cases in which bills have be-
come laws by lapse of time, without the
Presidents signature, only the date the act
was received at the Office of the Secretary
of State is given in the publication.
The second objection, that the title is not
in conformity with article ia of the consti-
tuition, is not more tenable. Whatever
special provisions may be found in the char
ter of the corporation are sufficiently COW
cred by the title 40 authorize the incorpo-
ration of the Louisiana State Lottery Com
panv.' The purport of this constitutional
| provision has been time and again stated to
| be, by the Supreme Court, to prevent the
| insertion in the statutes of objects foreign
to the subject matter of the law. The ex-
| elusive privilege Of vending lottery tickets
granted TO the company. is not foreign to
| the subject matter 10 which the title calls
attention.
| In the third place it is claimed by defend
| ants that a provision in the charter of the
| company exempts it from taxation in viola
| ton OF article us Of the constitution. II
| the objection be good it does not affect this
case, tor only that part of the law would
| fail 1t viii be time enough. however, to con-
| slider the question when proceedings are
taken TO la,r and collect taxes against the
company. Certainly these defendants have
nothing to DO with the question
II is urged that the law is regulation
of commerce, because it prohibits the sale of
foreign lottery tickets which may be
brought into the State This question was
disposed OF adversely to the position taken
! by the defendants III the license cases re-
| ported i'll ) Howell, $50. See Story on the
| constitution, section 1872
Defendants urge that since the Lottery
! Company has its action for damages under
| the charter. therefore it is not entitled to
the writ Of injunction. But the Supreme
Court has held that the writ should issue at
the suit OF any person to prevent an inJu-
rious act from which damages may ensue.
Carraby ct ais. vs. Morgan, L. S. 800. One
remedy does not preclude another. A man
NAV he prosecuted for an act crimlnally for
which a civil action for damages will lie.
| The injunction was made perpetual.
The st. James Chapel Case.
African Methodist Episcopal Church VS..
Adolph Zemar ct al.-On motion of S. Bel
den, attorney for plaintiffs, and on suggest
ing to the court that the congregation OF st.
| James Chapel, who are members of the
Methodist denominations of Christians and
represented by trustees, and the plaintiffs
| herein. owing to this and other litigation
and the arbitrary acts of defendants, are
| without place to worship, except by the
| payment of large amounts: and on further
| suggesting that they could make use OF
Turner's Hail. for the purpose Of worship,
| until a final termination of this suit, with
out detliment to any person or persons con-
| cerned it is ordered that the trustees rep
rcsenting the church in this suit, be allowed
the use Of Turner'S Hail. for divine service
with the congregation represented by them
until the termination of this suit; provided
| the parties defendant shall not he inter-
rupted in their worship in the church. And
| the court so ordered.
The ship Island Canal Case.
On motion of Hays & New, of counsel
for George F. Brott, reator herein, it was
ordered by Judge Dibble that the man
damus herein be executed at once, the de-
cision of this court being unappealabie, or
| that the contrary be shown on Wednesday,
the twentieth OF July, at ~ A. NJ.
United States Commissioners Court.
The United States vs. J. T. D. Lefebre. and
the United States VS.. A. Richolx.-Ihese
cases came up before United States Com
| missioner Grant, pursuant to adjournment,
| Yesterday, at eleven o'clock. The charge
on which the defendants were arrested was
that they had sold Havana lottery tickets
without having paid the United States in
ternal revenue tax as dealers III LOTTERY
tickets The tickets sold were produced
and identified, and the defendants We're
held under bonds of $1,000 each, to appear
before the United States Circuit Court III
November.
Captain A NJ Osgood, although severely
injured by the Right Way disaster, is NOV
ing about the city, Strengthening, as far as
possible. the affairs of his boat. The report