New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-24
THE COURTS.
Seventh District Court.-The Magazine
Street Railroad.


Charles Lauer ct al. vs. Magazine Street
Railroad of Jefferson City,
Suit has been instituted in this case and
by several other parties, in which it is al
legged that on the twenty third of Septem-
Der, 1865, the city of Jefferson entered into
a compromise with Joseph Kaiser. president
of the Jefferson City Railroad company, Of
certain litigation pending between the said
City of jefferson and the said railroad, in
which it was acknowledged that the COM
pany was indebted to Jefferson City in the
sum Of $l0, 900, the price Of the franchise of
the road. Kaiser gave his notes for the
amount and took possession Of the road.
These notes became the property of the par
ties plaintiff, and being secured by mort
gage the road was yesterday seized under
executOry process.
Eighth District Court.
H. T. Romeyn VS.. j. r. West-In this
case counsel took a rule on j. 0. Nixon,
Jr, and J. o. Nixon, ST., to show cause on
Wednesday next, why they should not
file in court the written testimony herein
taken.
The counsel stated that the testimony
had been taken down in short hand by j.
O. Nixon, Jr., and afterward written ont in
full, or in long hand. 1t made about $50,
or at most $50 pages.
Mr.. Nixon charged for this testimony
S4UI. ana refused 10 denver IT to the court
until the amount should be paid.
Counsel offered him $3.50, which he
thought was more than the work was worth.
and Mr.. Nixon, Jr., refused to receive it,
stating that he was going away and would
leave the written testimony with his father,
J. O. Nixon. Sr. Mr.. Nixon, Sr., also re-
fused to receive the amount rendered.
Counsel desired possession Of the testimony
in order to prepare their briefs and hence
the rule.
THE JACKSON RAILROAD CAsE.-In this
case, the President and Directors of the
jackson Railroad have commenced work in
order to extend their track from their pres
ent depot along st. Joseph street to the grain
elevator on the Mississippi river, and fear
ing that Samuel Smith Z. r. Parker, Moses
Eastman and other property holders on st.
Joseph street. would interfere with them in
prosecuting the work, took out an injunc-
ton before Judge Dibble on the eighteenth
instant, prohibiting said property holders
from interfering with them in prosecuting
the work.
1t appears that on the twenty-ffth of No
vember last these same property holders
had taken out an Injunction before Judge
Cooley, of the Sixth District Court (which
has been transferred to this court) prohib-
iting the jackson Railroad from laying the
proposed track along the street referred to.
1nlS ln)uHcl1On was uaue absolute, ana mas
never been appealed from.
Subsequently. by an act of the Legisla-
ture, at its special session on the sixteepth
of March, 1870, it was enacted that the
jackson Railroad should have the privilege
Of laying their track along st. Joseph street
to the river-thus overriding the injunction
of Judge Cooley.
In view of this act of the Legislature, the
railroad company went to work on the
eighteenth instant, tearing up the pave
ment on st. Joseph street, with the view of
laying down cross ties and rails to the river,
and on the same day enjoined the property
holders from interfering with them in car
rying on the work.
Thereupon, the property holders took a
rule on the managers of the road to show
cause why they should not be punished for
a contempt in disobeying the injunction
issued by Judge Cooley.
The question seems to be whether the in
junction by Judge Cooley or the subsequent
act of the Legislature is to prevail.
Judge Emerson held that there was no
contempt on the part Of the managers OF the
road, and dismissed the rule.