New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-12-07
THE WEEKLY REPUBLICAN
Terms Of Subscription.
One year, IS; six months, 81 so.
THE COURTS.


;. Habeas Corpus Case.
After the taking of the testimony in this
case Monday, and the conclusion Of the
argument, the matter was taken under ad-
visement by Judge Dibble. Yesterday
morning, ON the assembling of the court,
the Judge said he had not yet made up his
mind as to the suficiency of the warrant
under which Hunsaker was arrested, and
his decision, therefore, would be reserved
until this morning.
The petitioner having given bond in the
sum Of $500, the bond was continued over
until to-day.
Metropolitan Pslice Cases.
In the Sixth District Court a number of
policemen have brought suit against the
per cent on their salaries, alleged to be due
them under q late act of the Legislature.
"A number Of cases involving the same
principle, have recently been decided by
Judge Dibblc, of the Eighth District Court.
adversely to the pretensiOns Of the claim
ants.
The Donaldsonville Murder-Petiti for a
Habeas Corpus.
In the United States Circuit Court, Judge
Durell presiding, an application for writ
OF habeas corpus has been made by David
Fisher, j. G. Olivier and C. Olivier, the par
ties charged with the murder of Judge
William Conway Lawes and Marx SchOn-
berg, near DOnaldsonville, ON the eighth of
November last.
The petitioners set forth that they are citi-
zens of the parishes of St. James and Ascen-
sion, and that they are imprisoned and re-
strained of their liberty by j. A. Masicot.
Prison for the parish Of Orleans, who !justi-
fies and persists in holding them in custody
BY virtue Of two warrants issued by j. b.
: Weller, Commissioner of the United States
for the State Of Louisiana, one dated the
seventeenth Of November, and the other on
the third of December, 1870. That said
warrants OF commitments are illegal and
void, for this, tO-wit:
i. They do not set forth that any charge
was made on the oath of any person, as
required by law.
. They do not set forth that the parties
were examined, and that probable cause
was shown to warrant said commitments.
8. The said commissioner, from ANYTHING
that appears in said commitments, had no
Jurisdiction to examine the charges therein
contained.
4. That the Offenses embraced in the COM
mitments are not offenses embraced in the
act of Congress entitled" An act to enforce
the rights of the citizens Of the United
States to vote in the several States of this
Union, and for other purposes, approved
May 81, 1870, nor any other act s0f Congress.
5. That it appears your petitioners aver
to the fact, that the offences complained of
and charged against them before said COM
missioner, were committed after the election
for members Of Congress in said State Of
Louisiana, t0-wit: On the eighth of NOvern-
Der, 1870, and some five miles away from any
place of voting at said election, and there
lore not embraced in any of the provisions of
the act above stated.
6. From this commitment itclearly appears
that the Offenses charged are not cOgnizable
befare the courts of the United States.
i z. The commitments are otherwise in
formal, defective and insufficient.
Petitioners pray for writ of habeas cor
pus. Judge Durell issued the writ, and the
case will be tried before him on Thursday,
the eighth instant. t
A. 2, Field appeared as counsel for the
prisoners.
The Fisk Divorce Case.
In the Sixth District Court it is expected
that the celebrated Fisk divorce case will
shortly come up. It will be remembered
that Mrs. Fisk sued for alimOny and OBJ
tanned Judgment in her favor. The case,
which ls an extraordinary one in many re-
spects, Will now come up on its merits. The
alleged husband, we believe, claims that he
was never legally married to the party
suing, and that he could not have been, as
he had a wife living at the time.
The Times Libel Suit,
j. M. Cass vs. G. A. Weed ct al-In this
case the plaintiff sued, in the Seventh Dis
trict Court, for 100000 damages for an al
legged libel published in the Times in 1869.
The matter was tried last winter before a
jury, who gave verdict in favor of plaintiff
for $1,000. Defendants obtained a new trial
and the case again came up yesterday. A
portion Of the testimony was gone through
with and the case continued over until this
morning.