New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-01
THE COURTs.


Judge C0bey, IN the olAtA OlstIACs Ooo1ts
in the Jack Killeen habeas corpus case:
Some people in this city seem to imagine
it is q matter of pleasure to the District
Judges to release parties who stand charged
with the crime of vagrancy. care little
about the opinion of persons who have such
ideas. But know that in the community
of New Orleans there are many men whose
good opinion l do value, and who have
very wrong notion in relation to these mat
ters. therefore take this occasion to ex-
plain the position of the courts OF New Or
Recorders of the city.
The matter is just as plain as mans
nose on his face. One who can not see a
mans nose on his face, is about the only in'
dividual who can not appreciate the dis
tinctiOn the courts have made.
In the Revised Statutes, enacted at the
last session OF the Legislature, are two laws
about vagrancy, one which ls eimply the re-
enactment Of the act of 1855, and the other
the re.enactment OF the act OF 1869.
The act of 1855 authorized recorders 10
try and adjudicate the guilt or innocence OF
a person charged with the crime Of Va.
grancy. This power the Legislature OF 1885
had clearly the right to confer upon the he.
corders. Article l24 of the constitution of
1852 clearly gave that power to the Leglsla-
ture. But the act of 1869 does not give them
that power. 1t places the disposition OF
such cases before the first District Court.
the Criminal Court of this city, to De tried
bv the Judge of that court, and II the &C.
cused so desires. by a jury.
That is the law which is now operative
under the constitution of 1869, because that
constitution prohibits the Legislature giving
the power to any other officers except those
mentioned in the judiciary department OF
the constitution.
Under that law, parties accused Of vsgran-
cy can be tried, convicted aud punished. NO
court in this city has ever decided they could
not be. But it is evident that tor some pur
good, or public welfare, the police
and Recorders of this city, do not choose to
proceed under the act of 1869, which divests
them of the power to try these criminals
and gives it to Judge Abel, they wish to
retain their control over those cases; and 1t
is simply fight on their part to retain the
power the act of 1855 gave them, but which.
under the constitution Of 1863, SO long as
am on the bench, they will not exercise.
1t can not be for the purpose OF subscribing
the public interest, because courts which are
their superior, and whose orders they are
bound to obey. have decided that they are
wrong and must proceed under the act OF
1869. If they choose still to proceed under
the act of 1855, Notwithstanding the decision
of their superiors that this act Is no longer
operative, it is upon them and not on the
courts that the blame must rest, that par
ties like the one now before NE are let loose
upon the community. 1t isclear to my
mind that if there be any fault at all
for letting loose these parties on the COM
munity, 1t is not in the courts.
1t ia not the fault of the Judges, who hav-
ing taken an oath to administer the consti-
tuition and law as it is written, obey the dc
tates of that oath and choose not to violate
the laws and the constitution On the con-
trary, the blame rests on those who have
taken similar oath, but choose to disregard
the law they are sworn to maintain.
can not see what good object is to be
subserved by insisting upon q manner OF
commitment of these parties, which the law
does not justify. and which can not be car
ried practically into effect.
Although have no power to revise the
judgments of the Recorders, and although l
can not say under the evidence that he had
no right to arrive at the conclusion he did,
still | have the right to refer 70 the testi-
mony taken before him, with q view OF
vindicating the justice of the prohibition
contained in the constitution Of 1868. l
have read carefully and attentively the
testimony taken before Recorder Staes on
the trial of Caro- on the charge of vagrancy,
and as lawyer, will stake my reputation
that there is as much evidence before Re-
corder Staes to convict him of vagrancy as
there is to convict the Great Mogul. But,
notwithstanding this, absolutely and utterly
without evidence, the man Caro- was con-
victed and sent to the WOrkLouse.
/ say such conduct as that on the part OF
petty magistrates, amrly vindicates and
iustifes the prohibition, contained IN the
constitution OF 1868, and shows that those
who inserted that prohibition kaew what
they were about.
Let the prisoner be discharged.
Eighth District Court.
State ex rel. George A. Sheridan VS.. James
Graham, State Auditor.-In this case the
relator twas appointed by the Governor
State Tax Collector for the First District OF
New Orleans, in the place OF +. @. Mahan,
who had been previously elected to the
office. Some time ago this court decided
that Sheridan was entitled to the Office, and
Mahan appealed to the Supreme Court.
He is still the occupant of the office, and
is engaged in the collection of taxes. After
the appeal was taken, Sheridan took out an
Injunction restraining JAMES Graham, State
Auditor, from auditing the claim of F. G.
Mahan for the fees and emolumeIts of his
office.
The case came up yesterday on rule to
set aside the injunction and claim for dam
ages on the part of Mahah and against Sherl-
dan.
Mr.. Mahan, on the stand, said that since
the issuance Of the injunction the State
licenses, ana he had, therefore, been IN
able to collect licenses amounting to over
$50, 900. Last year he collected about $3.50,
on which his commissions were five per
cent. The amount of licenses which he has
been prevented from collecting since the
tenth OF June is about 10000, and the
amount of taxes from 1926 900 to $500 600,
which he could have collected by this time
if it bad not been for this Injunction. The
commissions now due him on licenses are
S235. He has collected this month about
$4,000.
Mr.. Burckett on the stand, said that Mr..
Mahan has made demand on the Auditor
for q warrant for the amount of his commits
sions as State Tax Collector. and that the
Auditor has refused on account of this ln-
junction. Witness was frequently in the
office of the State Tax Collector, and per.
sons came there and refused to pay taxes, IN
consequence of this iDj junction.
The rule was continued by consent until
Saturday at ten o'clock.
Second District Court-Wm OF John
Armstrong.
The following is the will of the late John
Armstrong, made before Edward Barnett,
notary public, on tie sixth of June, 1870:
l declare that my name is Johu Arm
strong; that am lawfully married to Mary
Norris, now living with me, by which mar
risge have six children living.
To my said wife, Mary Norris, give and
bequeath the usufruc: and enjoyment, foI
and during the term of her natural life,
of all the property, goods apd effects which
may leave.
l nomisate and appoint my said wife,
together with my son, William J. Arm
strong, to be the testamentary executors o.
my estate, with seizin of the same.