New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-08-11
THE COUlTS.
Eighth District COurt.-LG9e' Emme rsOn,
presiding - imprisonment Of the Presi.
dent and Cashier If the Southern
BaMk..Revenues of ne Bank Seques.
rrutef

presiding ..-EmprisOnnent of the Presi-
dent and Cashier If the Southern
BaMk..Revenues of ne Bank Seques-
traied.
Jacob Strauss VS.. Southern Bank-The
rule for u contempt taken Ii this case against
Thomas Layton, PresidalS. and Charles
Livaudais. Cashier, of the Southern Bank,
continued from Tuesday, vas taken up YES
terday.
Major j II. New appearsd as attorney for
the plaintiff in the rule.
The attorneys for the hnk read the an
swers of the President AMI Cashier to the
rule. to show cause why awrit of distringas
should not issue, sequesterng the revenues
of the bank, and why the respondents
should not be punished by inc and impris-
ment.
1t was admitted by the parties that the
protest entered 10y the b,nk i'll the bank
book oT Strauss was enterei by and under
the advice OF the attorney e the bank. The
answer di>claimed any intention on the part
of respondent TO commit acontempt OF this
court.
Major New contended that it was no de-
fense that defendants acted by advice Of
counsel. The Southern Bank has been in
existence seventeen years, and it was
strange that its officers did not know how
10 balance a book without the advice of
counsel. There was not 4 clerk III New
Orleans who did not know how to balance
a bank book. The answer of defendants
that they acted by advice sf counel. was a
mere evasion 10 cover theii contempt.
They state in the entry made in the pass
book of Strauss that they give him credit
for $4,000 in obedience to tie order of the
court. but III the same sentence they say
that they owe him only SE34 DO. This was
not a compliance with the order.
Counsel for the bank eontended that if
the defendants were imprisoned in this case
it would be equivalent to IN Imprisonment
for debt
Judge Emmerson said he could not view
it in that light.
Counsel TOR respondents gave notice that
they would apply to the supreme Court for
a mandamus compelling the Eighth District
Court 70 allow an appeal to the Supreme
Court of the State. Every man has nat
ural as well as a constitutional right 10 ap-
peal. and a declaration OF an intent to ap-
peal does not amount 10 contempt.
Respondents counsel stated they had re-
ceived IA dispatch from Monroe to the effect
that the Supreme Court had issued an alter
native mandamus, returnable in November,
directing that an appeal be allowed.
Mai jOr New said ii was to his knowledge
that the Supreme Court had adjourned on
the fifth instant.
Some spicy passages here took place be-
tween the counsel. wherein the bank was
lauded as an honest institution. and a
classic allusiOn was made 10 the sword of
Damocles hanging over the president and
directors of the bank during the late war.
Counsel spoke of the high standing of the
defendants, and ignored the view that. they
had been guilty ofecontempt in protesting
against the Judgment of the court.
Counsel tMr. Ilsley) said that Strauss
would never get one dollar of that $4,000
unless he got it at the end of the law-atter
a decision OF the highest tribunal of the
State. This court had ordered the bank to
balance the book of Strauss, and they lad
done so. The court had not ordered de-
PENDANTS TO pay the money, but only to
balance the book. and they would not pay
the money until the certified check was
presented.
Major j. H. New replied that the maxim,
festiRa tente, or make haste slowly" quoted
by counsel. might do very well for the bank
when it has the use of $l9, 600 of the money
belonging to Strauss at five per cent. for an
indefinite period of time. but that did not
suit the views of Strauss, who wanted to
use the money.
Judge Emmerson recapitulated the facts
relative TO the deposit Of the $4,000 by
Strauss, the drawing Of the certified check
by him, his notice to the bank not 70 pay it,
the presentation of the check. and the re-
fusal Of the bank to pay it to the holder,
and the fact that the money was still III
bank. belonging to Strauss.
When q bank has the money Of q depos
itor, it is its duty to balance the passbooi1
The bank has the $4,000. ! ordered the
bank to balance the book They entered
the credit, and in the next line practically
erased it. They say in figures that they
owe tie money, and in writing that they do
not owe it.
This Is not compliance with the order o!
this court. The advice of counsel does not
shield them from the consequences of dis
obedience to the order The defendants are
personally liable for disobeyirg the order
Of the court.
Let the rule be made absolute Let Mr..
Layton, President, be imprisoned until he
complies with the order Of the court; Mr..
Livaudais, for aiding in disobeying the order !
rs cashier, be imprisoned forty-eight hours,
md the revenues of the bank be seuuestered !
until the money be paid.
The Southern Bank Case-Writs Of Habeas !
COrpus-DecisiOn of Judge C0ilens-
Mr.. Layton and MIR. Livaudais Dis.
charged. !
After the order Of Judge Emmerson, i'm |
)risoning the president and cashier vester- !
tay, wrlts of habeas corpus were sued out, !
md the parties brought before Judge Col !
ems, at eight o'clock.
The Sheriff made return that he held the |
PARTIES in custody, in obedience to an order
II the Eighth District Court.
Upon hearing the pleadings and evidence,
ludge Collens decided in the case Of Mr..
4ayton that the commitment was Illegal |
or uncertainty, not being for a specific and |
limited number of days.
In the case Of Mr.. Livaudais, he was not
committed for contempt" but for ''aiding
md abetting" in a contempt, an ofense not
,nown to the law. He, therefore, dis
harged the prisoners.