New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-22
THE OOURTs.


Yesterday an answer was filed by Messra
Cooley Phillips and A. A. Atachs, attor
ney tor defendant, in substance as follows:
Respondent alleges that bill was pendin
. IN the Legislature for the relief of Murph
and Frizzell, and Patrick Fcizzell finding
difficult or impossible to have the CLAIM
| passed in the legitimate way, was induce,
by threats of the defeat of the bill to execut
the two notes, leaving blank in the place
where the words ito bearer" are now found
and delivered them to Senator Carlos vii
cox as the price of his support of the bill
and it was distinctly understood between
respondent and Wilcox that said price wa
to be divided between Wilcox and severa
other Senators, whose names will be givel
in due time. Respondent says that the con
sideration OF the Rotes WAS illegal, and, al
they were transferred after they were due
he is in nowise responsible for their amounts
Sixth District COurt-The Opera HOUSE
In Court.
Bernard Avegno vs.. Opera House Associa
ton. In this case Judge Cooley has issued
an Injunction restraining defendants from
| dlsposIng Of pr0scenium box H., before or
after the twenty-grst of May, 1870 until the
| further order of the court. Plaintiff alleges
that he bought the box in 1863; and he
claims the right to continue in possession OF
1t as long as he pays the annual rent o.
S40O, and the. customary subscriptions. He
! says that he has fitted up the box at an ex-
pense exceeding $500, and that on the third
| OF May he notified the association that he
| intended to retain the box, and continue his
| subscription.
| Seventh District Court.
c. Cordes Thayer VS.. Rufus NAPLES. In
| this Case plaintiff claims $4,000 damages.
| He AYERS that he rented the lower floor of
| No. ~ Camp street, of defendant, from the
| first Of February to the first of September,
1870, with the privilege of renewal for one
year, aud that defendant finding he could
| rent the store to better advantage to the
Hibernia Bank. instituted legal proceedings
against him, Ousted him of possession, and
broke him up 10 his business, rs auctioneer.
He asks Judgment for the amount claimed.
The Mng.zine street Railroad Case.
In the Eighth District Court came up,
yesterday, the counter-inj functions relative
to the Magazine Street Railroad. 80 far as
it is located in the late City OF Jefferson.
After discussion by Messrs. Cotton and
Lacey, representing the conflicting claims
OF Peter Kaiser and others and J. H. Young,
the cases, as consolidated, were submitted,
and the court took the matter under advise
ment.
The jackson Railroad Case.
In this case, General Bearegard, as presi-
dent OF the old Board of Directors has filed
return 10 the writ of quo irdrrGnto applied
for by the new board, represented by H. s.
McCOmb. The points made IN the return
are, that they claim to hold their offices
under an election held on the thirtieth of
April. 1859; that pursuant to public notice
a ajority of the stockholders had assem-
bled on the eighteenth of April for the cleo
ton OF their successors; that the elec-
ton was not held on that day, because of
an Injunction issued at the suit of 81. S. Nc.
Comb; that said injunction of the eight
eenth of April dissolved the meeting sine
dae, and therefore no reelection could be
held without due notice to the stockholders;
that McComb. on the twenty.fifth of April
secretly dismissed his injunction, without
notice to any one, etc.
The ship Island Canal Case.
In this case an application for an appeal
has been made in the Eighth District Court,
to be argued on Monday, the twenty-third
instant.
Eighth Distrlct Court.
George F. Brott VS.. City of New Orleans
George Z. BrOtt, President of the New Or
leans aud Ship Island Canal Company, has
filed petition representing that on the
eighth OF November, 1869, the City Council
oiJetferson adopted an ordinance 'designa,-
ing the route of a lateral branch OF the New
Orleans and Ship Island Canal Company,
extending from the main canal to the Mis-
sissippi river, in the City of Jefferson, to
use the same for drainage purposes" Pc.
titioner represents that under said ordinance
the Mayor of the City of jefferson was au-
thorized to contract in relation to this canal, |
and it was made the duty OF the Treasurer
of the city of Jefferson to endorse copy of |
said ordinance on 400 bonds of $1,000 each, to |
be issued by said company. Relator
AYERS that by the act of annexing the |
City OF Jefferson to the city of New Or |
leans, the latter became responsible for the |
contracts of the former. He asks writ of !
mandamus commanding Mayor Flanders |
and the seven Administrators to comply !
with said ordinance of the City of Jefferson,
by issuing to him the 100000 in bonds of
the city, drawing eight per cent and due in
thirty years.
Judge Dibble issued the writ, returnable
)n the thirty.first of May.
Eighth DIattict Court.
George Mertz VS.. r. Newove and James
irwin, Constabie.-In this case Judge Dibble
las delivered the following decision:
The plaintiff obtained an injunction to re-
strain the constable OF the Second Justice |
If the Peace from selling certain property
It the execution of Newloye, upon which
property plaintiff claims lessons privilege.
Defendants except to the jurisdiction of
his court, averring that the case comes
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
third District Court for the parish of Or.
cans.
Although the statute creating this court |
learly vests it with exclusive Jurisdiction |
yer all original njunctiOn suits in ordinary
ivii matters 1t is clear that it was intended
0 continue to the Third District Court as |
ourt of appeals from justices of the peace
4 this parish, the full aud exclusive power |
D exercise supervision and control over the
of the justices of the peace and |
yer the acts of their constables. This ex- |
luslVe jurisdiction Is conferred upon the |
bird District Court by section ten of act
umber forty-tour of 1865. The following
xplicit language is used: In all cases .
here party shall have cause to complain
t any judgment of Il justice of the peace, .
= of any act of a constable OF a justice OF | .
ne peace, or OF his deputies, and shall think I,
roper to apply to higher court for relief ,
y Writs OF injunction, mandamns, seques- :
,atiOn, action of nullity or otherwise, it |
hall be TO this (Third) court only, and to no
ther that he all apply for relief"
1t is evidenYb me that this definite eX-
usive jurisdiction WAS in nowise interfered !
18th by the statute of sixteenth March, 1870.
ection seven reads as follows: 6" That the
bird District Court shall have exclusive
over appeals from justices of
le peace, and shall have power to issue all
wrlts necessary to the exercise
such appellate .jurisdiction.'
The statute Of 1865, in relation to the ju-
sdiction Of the Third District Court, in no
dy conflicts with this law Of 1870 and is
OF abrogated by the repeating clauses of ]
le latter act.
I, therefore. conclude that this court is c
ithout jurisdiction in the premises.
Bat the plaintiff first presents his petition !
, the Judge of the Third District Court. I
ho. then supposing that this court had the 6
,le jurisdiction to issue the writ OF iniunc-