New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-02
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court.

| debtedness amounting to $4,000, and
demanded to be permitted to exchange
| them for seven per cent bonds OF the city,
at twenty-five per cent discount.
! Defendants have filed answer, in effect,
as follows:
The Bank of New Orleans, defendant
herein, in its capacity as administrator OF
! the Floating Debt of the city of New Or
! leans. comes into court and excepts to re-
| latus demand for this: That relatOr can
not proceed by way OF mandamus against
| this defendant, who is an auditing and dis
| bursing officer of the city of New Orleans,
for the matters and things as set forth in his
petition which are to the purpose of en-
| forcing the payment of money claimed to
| be due to the city of New Orleans; but must
| proceed in the ordinary form, and against
! the said city in its own proper name.
| Wherefore, this defendant prays that ro-
1 lator's claim be dismissed with costs.
| And should tie said exception be over
ruled, land not otherwise), the said Bank of
New Orleans, in its aforesaid capacity, for
| answer to relator's demand, says that it has
not on hand, and never had on hand, and in
| its possession, any money proceeding from
the sale of the $300O.000 bonds, issued by
the city of New Orleans under the pIovi
sions of the fourth section of act number
seven of the extra session of 1870: none OF
| said bonds having been sold for money, and
| all those which have been disposed of hav-
| ing been exchanged at the rate of eighty
| two and II half cents on the dollar, against
certificates issued by this respondent, under
sections forty and fOrty-one OF the above de-
scribed act.
For further answer, respondent says that
the Administrator of the Floating Debt Is not
bound by law to pay in money the certificates
| held by relatOr, until the said bonds shall
have been sold by the said administrator,
and that the time, opportunity, and rate OF
sale OF said bonds, are left by law to the
discretion and Judgment Of said admlnlstra-
| tor Further, that the law leaves to tue
| discretion and Judgment OF said administra
tor to determine and decide whether the
bonds should be disposed of by sale or ex-
change with the creditors of the floating
| debit and that the said administrator Is the
| sole Judge of the rate Of discount at which
said bonds ought to be sold or exchanged
for the interest of the city. Respondent
further says that the said Administrator of
the Floating Debt has refused the offer made
of the said relator, to take bonds in ex
change for his certificates of Indebtedness.
at the rate of twenty tive per cent less than
the face thereof. for the reason that the said
offer is for less than the current value OF the
bonds, which all the creditors who have
taken the same in exchange for their certl-
ticates, without any exception. have ac-
cepted and taken at the rate of seventeen
|
that this respondent does not believe that
the interest of the city of New Orleans can
be benefited by discriminating IN favor of
| the relatOr.
Wherefore. respondent prays that reia-
tors demand be rejected, with costs and for
general relief.
The city of New Orleans has also filed an
intervention, i'll which it is alleged:
| That if the RUE ,,isi issued herein is made
absolute and peremptOry mandaInus is
sued as prayed for by relator, damage to
the amount of at least 3703i II will inure
| to petitioner. and perhaps to a far greater
extent. in this immediate case, and to
| an amount of many thousands OF dollars IN
other similar cases. That the writ of mai-
damus prayed for by relator should not issue
! against the defendant. who Is an officer OF
this intervenor for the following reasons,
| viz:
l. That the act No. ). page 10. of the eX-
ira session of the Legislature OF Louisiana.
expressly prohibits the issuance of the writ
OF mandamus prayed for.
. That relator shows no good and valid
cause for the issuance Of the writ OF man
damus.
>. That the officers designated by law, OF
the city Of New Orleans, have discretionary
power in the disposition OF the bonds de
scribed in REALTORS petition. now IN the
hands of the Administrator OF the Floating
Debt. and said Administrator has no legal
authority TO dispose of the same without the
authority of such officers, who have not au-
| thorized the disposal OF them to relator;
that intervenor through her proper officers,
will be enabled to dispose of said bonds at a
much larger price than seventy-flye cents on
the dollar. and have been SO doing success
fully: that no injury can result TO relator
from delay. as the certificates held by him
draw an equal rate OF interest with the
bonds: and that until all OF said bonds are
sold or disposed OF, rclator can not demand
that his claim be paid i'll money, nor can he
make such demand without complying with
the formalities Of the law, by obtaining
Judgment against iutcryenor III q direct
action, etc.
Wherefore. petitioner prays that his petit
ton be fled. and defendant be cited to an
swer, and that REALTORS petition be d.--
missed with costs.
Antoni de Monasterio VS.. Alfred Shaw,
Administrator of Accounts, Mayor ct al
In this case, heretofore reported, respond
ents have fled an answer and exceptions,
in which it is set forth that, by act No. > OF
- the extra session of the Legislature of 1870,
no writ OF mandamus can lawfully issue to
respondents; that relator shows no good
cause for the issuance OF the writ OF manda-
mus: that the acts demanded to be done by
respondents are discretionary with them.
and that no mandamus can lie III cases OF
such a character.
And in case this exception be Oyerruled,
respondents for answer plead a general de-
nial. and aver that the warrants and state
ments annexed to relator petition are false
and fraudulent were Illegally ana unJustly
issued, and that the city OF New Orleans Is
not. and the late Police jury of the right
bank, parish of Orleans, never was respon-
I sible for the amount Of said warrants, tor
the following reasons:
l. That warrant No. 73i. in favor Of
Robert +. Brown, is not lndorsed ny him,
and that the said Police jury never puI-
chased OF received the flatboats for which
the warrant was gwen.
= The warrant in favor Of Patrick Ro-
nley was never indorsed by him, and the
jury never contracted with him for eXca
vatin. and clearing certain canals. That
the warrants in favor of $. w. Thompson
& CO.. that in favor OF Michael Kennedy
and that the three warrants in favor OF A.
de MOnasteriO are all fraudulent, for the
reasons that the work charged Tor IN the
bills annexed to said warrants was never
performed. and the materials alleged TO have
been furnished We're never received tor noI
applied to the use of the parish but Were
used for the benefit of private individuals.
with the full knowledge of the rclatOr here
in. And respondents further aver. that
they deny tue signature of ''W. II. Sey-
mour, President" to be his genuine s. gna-
ture; they deny that the work ami materials
| charged for were ever done or furnished 10
the parish; they deny that they ever were
legally contracted4or by said Police Jury
and they deny that any legal authority
was ever given for the issuance OF SAID
warrants and deny that the bills were ever
approved by the Police Jury.
The Mount Olive Church Case.