New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-10-19
THE COURTS.
SHIT for Divorce.

Suit for Divorce.
w. Feryine Miller vs.. John Miller, her
husband.-In this suit, brought in the
Fourth District Court the fair petitioner
represents that she was married TO John
Miller in the City Of Jefferson, on the ninth
of June, 1869. She AYERS that ever since
her marriage her husband has ill-treated
her in the most cruel and shameful manner.
that she bore this ill-treatment and abuse
with the most patient resignation, in the
hope that he would reflect on the enorslity
and rec1lessness of his conduct: but now
she is under the painful necessity of charg
ing that her hopes have been painfully
disappointed, and that the cruel treatment
size has received is utterly insupportabe
and renders her living with hiTl any longer
highly dangerous to her life.
Plaintiff alleges that during six months
previous to the filing of this petition the
pugnacious Miller. who seems to be an
adept i'll the gentle science of milling, has
repeatedly knocked her down, and whe1s
down attempted to kill her with certain
messing instrument known as knife
Likewise she declares that the vituperative
John has publicly DETAINED her, calling her
pet names familiar to the purleus OF Per
dido street, dcnominating her witch and
such like loving epithets. From these de-
monstratons on the part OF her pugnaclous
husband. she declares she is afraid he will
kill her; in other words. cut short the tread
of her mundane existence. and thus terIni-
nate their marital association.
She SAYS that in consequence OF these
harrassing fears. she has been under the
necessity OF seeking refuge and protection
at the house of n friend.
Petitioner AYERS that at the time OF her
marriage she owned certain real estate and
other property. which, she claims. should
be secured to her by law. She asks tor a
divorce. and that dolnicile be assigned her
dur:ng the pending of this suit
Fourth District Court.
s. l.. Langlon vs. New Orleans Insurance
AsSOciation.-ln this case, plalnllH AYERS
that the defendants are indebted to him in
the sum Of $1,000. He alleges that on the
twenty-,eventh of July and nineteenth OF
August 1870 he was the owner OF stock
OF cigars and liquors. and the fixtures con
tanned in the brick building, patent rooted:
known as No. 81 Canal street, then occupied
by him.
He states that about the eleventh Of june
and tyenty-sevcnth of July last. he was in
sured on said property by the defendants,
in the sum of $500. The property was
destroyed by fire, and it is alleged that the
defendants refused to pay. Suit is brought
for the amount of the loss, and the plantlu
attorney ends a rather verbose petition IN
this peculiar language: And further,
throwing himself i'll the arms OF the conn
try. i'll asking that this case may he tried oy
jury.
Eighth District Court.
State cx rel Warner Van Nor'len vs..
Thomas w. Conway. State Superintendent
of Public EtIucation-This is case, hereto
fore reported, in which IA ln.ndaInuS Is
asked commanding defendant to apportlon
10 the CITY Board of School Directors the
| sum of SlY.2t6 30. out Of the tax levied Tor
the support of schools. under the act OF the
| State Legislature of March Ii. 1870.
This ease has been up several tunes ne
| fore. and now hinges. we believe. upon the
| rule to dissolve the Injunction sued ont by
Mr.. Van Norden against Conway IN winch
| the latter is restrained from interfering with
| the former Superintendent Conway. who
| is ranged upon that side of tie fight which
| seeks TO have the school fund appoTtIonet
out alnengj the several ward boards. con-
! tends. in his answer 10 the rule
|. That Van Norden shows no cause OF
action, and alleges nothing which wouI'i
| give rise TO a presumption that respondent
| intended to do anything which may DE inju-
rious to ilim
| = That Van Norden, as Treasurer OF the
city board. has no standin. IN co,rt. and
that corporations can only act II courts
through their president.
g. That as treasurer. Van Ncrden is a
| subordinate officer of the corporatlon SUD
ject to his, Conwavs, exclusive yi>itorial
power and Jurisdiction, and that he can not
dictate to him. Conway. the manner in
which he shall exercise his functions, nor
can he enioin respondent from exercising
said functions: and fourth, that he,
Conway. as the head of department OF IA
State. can not be controlled by the honora-
bic the Eighth District Court, in his official
acts, nor can the court enjoln him from eX-
ercising his duties according to his judg-
ment and discretion.
The case was opened yesterday on the
part of Mr. Lacey City Attorney,
The evidence on the part of the city
board having been declared closed. counsel
on the part of the State Superintendent
filed a printed list OF the apportionment,
the same which had been submitted by Mr..
Lacey. and he also announced the evidence
] closed so far as his side was concerned. NJ.
Lacey here asked for time TO prepare a
brief, and to gather up authorities. which
was resisted by counsel at the suggestion OF
the Superintendent.
The final argument was fixed for the
| twenty sixth of October.