New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-04-08
VHE COURTS.


TME COURTS.
Uaised State. Ci-cnit court-Ilon. x.
.DureIl presiding.
A. & G.. Donate vs. Board Of Police, town
OF Opelousae.-This was suit brought
under the provisions of the civil rights bill
to recover damages for the destruction OF
printing Office by mob, in the town OF
Opelousas, in September 1868. The case was
tried yesterday before jury, and Verdlct
was rendered in favor of PLAINTIFF for sl10o::
A. 2. Field. attorney for plaintiffs, ana
Kelly 4 Morgan for defendants.
Eighth District Court.
City of New Orleans VS.. Thomas L. Max
well, Sheriff.. K. Beckwith, City Attor-
ney. yesterday filed d petition IN this court,
setting forth that by an act OF the Legisla-
ture of March II, 1870 all courts in this
State are PROHIBITED from issuing any execu'
ton on any judgment for money against the
city of New Orleans. Plaintiff AYERS that
Thomas L. Maxwell, Sheriff, since the date
of the said law, still continues, IN contraven.
ton thereof to seize, and threatens TO sell
valuable property belonging to said city, by
virtue of sundry illegal and void writs of
fieri facias, which he will execute unless
restrained by authority Of this court. A
writ Of njurction, without bond or afndavlt,
WAS asked for and issued by order Of Judge
Dibbe.
Charles Morgan vs.. City OF New Orleans -
| IN this case, originally instituted in the
Sixth District Court, Judge Campbell yester-
day made motion, having for its object the
removal of the record to this court, on the
ground that Judge Cooley is Invested of
| jurisdiction in Injunction cases by the act
OF March Is. 1870, creating the Eighth Dis
| trict Court.
| Michel Lazard va. John r. Conway, Mayor,
ct al.-This is suit by injunction, origin
ally filed in the Fifth District Court, pro-
| hitting the city authorities from demolish-
| ing the wall of house owned by plaintiff.
| A few days ago, Judge beaumont transferred
the case TO the Eighth District Court, as the
tribunal havisg jurisdiction in injunction
cases. Yesterday Augustin Michel. OF
counsel for plaintiff, made a motion before
the Eighth District Court, to have the case
transferred back to the Fifth District Court,
| and filed the following reasons why the nrst
transfer wac illegal, and the Eighth District
Court not constitutional court:
| First-BeCause none OF the sections OF
the act of the Legislature of March l6,
1870, under which defendants made the
transfer, diyest the Fifth District Court OF
jurisdiction in this case, and no such inten-
ton can be gathered from the different sec
lions OF the act.
Second-ghe writ of injunction, when
once granted, is vested right IN favor OF
both parties, and no law can be passed di-
vesting said right. ARTICLE ITO, constitu-
ton of 1859.
Third-Admittng that the Eighth District
Court Is a constitutional court, this transfer
is Illegal because the sixth section OF the
act creating it confers the same powers on
the Fifth District Court, aud reaffirms Its
original jurisdiction as previously granted;
and the plaintiff, having once chosen his
FORUM can not be compelled, contradictory
or otherwise, to change the same agalns,
his viii, as is attempted to be done by this
Illegal transfer. $500,
Fourth-Because the constitution OF 1865
(article S3) has vested the Filth District
Court as one of the seven District Courts
under it. with exclusive jurisdiction IN AL
matters, except probate aud criminal, where
the sum IL controversy exceeds 500, aud
the present suit, when Instituted, fell within
the legitimate Jurisdiction Of the Fifth Dis
trict Court.
Fifth-Because the matter contained in
the second section of the act creating The
Eighth District Court, is not included IN the
titls of the act, as required by article ia OF
the constitution of 1868, and because said
second section violates also the provisions
contained in the eighty-third article of the
constitution, requiring the election OF judges
to be made by the qualified voters OF the
respective parishes; that such has not been
and is not the case with the honorable gen
tlemen who presides III this court.
Sixth-Because the object of the act Is not
expressed in It's title (artiCle ia, constltu-
ton of 1869.
New Orleans and Chattanooga Railroad
70. Charles Morgan ct ai.-In this case de-
PENDANTS. through their attorneys, Leovy 4
Morse. yesterday flied petition In tne
Eighth District Court. asking that the case
be transferred TO the United States Circuit
Court.
The Great rniphur Mine Gaze.
Escouhas L Lowell vs.. Louisiana Petrole
| UNI ana Coal Oil Company.-In this Case, an
appeal having been taken by the plaintiffs
who are Owners Of the land, from the decision
of Judge Theard OF the Fourth DistriCt..COurt,
the transcript of the evidence has been filed
, in the Supreme Court. The attorneys fol
the plaintiffs will, on Monday next, move &c
have the case set for trial on the preference
docket, so that it may be decided during the
, present term Of the court.
In the case of the Injunction taken out in
, the Sixth District Court on Thursday by
Charles Morgan, restraining the ChattanoO.
ga Railroad and the HarbormaSters OF tht
First District from interfering with his
Texas steamships. q motion was made yester
day before Judge Dibbie by Judge Campbell
| counsel for the Chattanooga road, to remove
the cause from the Sixth to the Eight
Court. on the ground that the former cour
} was stripped of jurisdiction in such cases
| by the act creating the latter court.
, Perez & Betancourt VS.. Merchants, New
| Orleans, Crescent, Louisiana and Home In
suranCe Companies. = This was SUI
8 brought for S64 900 in gold, the value of to
= bacco, vanilla and bullion, shipped on boart
tae schooner Ahtoinetta, from Vera Cruz II
= New Orleans, which foundered on her voy
: age on the eighth of December, 1868. tn
i defendants charged that the loss was oc
f casioned by the wilful act of the master o
the schooner, and that the cargo msure'
was not On board
i The jury that tried this case returned
3 | verdict for the defendants yesterday morn
ing. G. L. Bright for plaintiff. Lea, Fin
ney & Miller, NJ. N. Cohen, Randolph, Sin
| gIeton & Brown for defendants.
= United States Court.
J. 81. Ilsley, who was formerly one
the Judges of the Supreme Court of Louis
| lana. was yesterday appointed by JudS
Durell United States District Attorney pr
: tenn, in the place of Philip Hickey Morgan
t resigned.
The numerous friends Of Colonel Hanlon
! Clerk of the Fourth District Court, will b
| pleased 10 learn that his health is improV
ing.
Sewing machines are now sold on credi
by NJ. S. Redrick, the agent of Wilcox
| Gibbs, at his two stores, Nos. 81 and ii
Canal street. Here is a chance for poe
sewing women.