New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-08-07

THR C0URFs.
Eighth District Csurt.
State ex rel. George H. Read vs. Board
EmmersOn has rendered the following de.
cision: .....
From October l, 1863, to November, 1869.
and perhaps later, George H. Read was a
member of the police force for this district.
On the third of March. 1870, the Legislature
passed an act for the relief of those of them
who had suffered losses by discount on their
warrants. The preamble asserts the lssses
to be thirty per cent, and the first section
authorizes the Board of Police to paw in
warrants thirty per cent on every warrant
issued to the police for the fiscal year 1869,
excepting certain parties.
The relatOr claims to be one of these
sufferers. and his demand for thirty per
cent warrant having been refused, he asked
for mandamus.
Respondents allege three grounds of
justification for their refusal:
l. The issuance Of these warrants is dis
cretlonary with them, and not compulsory.
:. The act was intended to apply only to
those who were on the force at the time of
its passage.
3. That in no event are they bound to
pay more than the actual loss suffered.
hC law huu PCA tAAAtS anu
Civil Code, article 2. and all laws fall under
one of these three classes. Whether the act
i'll question is a command, or a mere per-
mission, must depend upon fair cOnstruc-
ton of its various sections.
The first section reads that the Board of
Metropolitan Police, Immediately after the
passage OF this act, be and is hereby author
lied to pay in warrants etc.
Section 3 That the Metropolitan Police
Board be and is hereby authorized to lew
special assessment on the different corpora
tons comprising the Metropolitan Police
district, for the purpose OF paying the said
police the discount lost on their warrants
for the fiscal year OF 1869.
The foregoing contains, in express terms,
no legislative order, and imposes no distinct
and positive duty. 1t is q mere grant of
power to do certain acts. and, therefore,
necessarily leaves its exercise discretionary
with the grantee. Considering the different
parts OF this law together, l hold it to be
authority TO the board to issue their war
rants III amounts not exceeding thirty per
cent. and in no event for amounts exceed
ing the actual loss. Were it otherwise, a
member Of the police force might receive
compensation beyond his stipulated salary
l am the more inclined to this construction
from the wording OF section two, which
authorizes an assessment for the purpose ''Of
paying said police the discount lost on their
warrants and must be confined to the
amount of the loss.
No proof was offered to show that the re-
lator had suffered any loss, and l can not
view the act as giving him clear title to any
specified amount. Under these circum-
stances, his application must be denied.
lie. the prayer for peremptory man
damus be refused.
The Ship Island Canal Case.
In this case Judge Emmerson having re-
fused to grant an appeal, the City Attorney
Yesterday ordered a transcript of the
record to be made out. preparatory to an
application for a mandamus from the Su
preme Court now sitting at Monroe.
Jacob Strauss VS.. Southern Bank-This ease
came up yesterday for argument on a motion
made by the respondent for a suspensive ap-
peal to the Supreme Court. from a Judgment
rendered recently, making mandamus
pcremptOry by which defendants were or
dered to enter on their books a credit for
$4,000 in favor of Strauss.
The origin Of this suit is familiar to the
public.
Judge Emmerson held that the bank had
no interest in the money invOlved-that the
amount was a mere deposit. which the bank
did not claim as its own property, and
IL AO dpBIctidUlt III
money. The motion for a suspensive ap-
peal was refused, and a copy OF the tran
script of the record was asked for prepara-
tory TO an application for a mandamus be-
fore the Supreme Court sitting at Monroe.
State ex rel. Henry Hull VS.. James Ora
ham, State Auditorium this case Judge
Emmerson has issued decree to the follow
ing effect: That James Graham. State Au-
ditor. do issue his warrant to the order of
Henry Hull. Jr., assignee of E. H. Anga-
mar and Charles lard. upon the State
Treasurer. for S2O,l52, appropriated by the
act OF the Legislature passed at the extra
session of 1870. of date March IA, entitled
an act to compensate E. H. Angamar and
Charles lard for their services and eX-
penses as special levee commissioners of
the State, and it is ordered that said Audi
tor do express on the face of the warrant
that the amount thereof is to be paid out OF
the proceeds of sales of the bonds issued
under the act of the General Assembly of
Louisiana, entitled IAN act to provide for
the payment of work done or to be done
on the levees of the State, under contract
by the Board of Public Works,
by the issuing of the bonds of the State to
the amount Of $4,000, 900, and to provide for
the redemption Of said bonds" approved
twenty-fifth of February, 1870, etc, and ont
of the funds provided by and derived under
said act, or out OF any other levee funds in
the treasury. Said warrant is not to be
issued. however, until the six certificates
heretofore issued for said $50, l52 shall be
delivered to said Auditor, all bearing date
April s. 1870, and numbered from 90 to 103
inclusive.
Sixth District Court.
Samuel Friedlander VS.. Isaac c. levin
this case plaintiff states that the defendant
is indebted to him in tie sum OF $3.50, and
in the further sum of $3.50, not vet due,
arising from contract of lease. 1t appears
that Friedlander rented to Levi the lower
floor of the house No. Camp street, on the
corner OF Canal, for the term of one year,
on the first of October, 1863,
and ending on the thirtieth Of September,
1870, at the rate of $3.50 per month.
Levi gave his notes for the rent. payable
but through inadvertence or other
wise he failed to sign his name to the notes
given for the last three months As soon as
this defect or omission was discovered,
Friedlander notified Levi in writing, and re-
quested him to perfect the notes under the
terms and conditions of the lease.
Levi refused to come to terms. refusing to
pay the rent due for the month of July, on
the ground that the note was not signed
Friedlander couldn't see it in this light, and
thereupon instituted suit before Judge
Cooley for the rent due for the month OF
July, and also for that to become due in
August and September. A writ of provis-
ional seizure was issued by order of Judge
Cooley, to the Sheriff, commanding him to
take possession of the leased premises and
contents