New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-04-09
TIRE CSUKTs.
TIE cTeEt Railroad stock Controversy
The City AL:sruey Captures she Ger
hsAGascG

yenor. This case came up for trial yester-
day before Judge Dibb.e. OF the Eighth
District Court. Messr5. Randolph q New
appeared for MoComb snd Z. Bermudez s4d
Judge Campbell for the railroad. Mr.. =. II.
Beckwith appeared for the CITY Ju1ge
Gates CT the stock before an &nswer or 3 re-
turn could be made, McOono responded oy
dMng authentic copies thereof.
Judge Dibble prompily 3eclded that the
original should be .iled, which was done.
end return made upon a2e seQuestratlou
euea out by the city, that TIE certincates hao.
.bee, handed over and were IN possession g.
the court. Maior New then moved that
McComb be allowed TO bond the certlhcstes.
7ahIeh motion VIII be ar-ued this mornlcf,.
TIE argument en- the Elandamus IS 90 tt
heard at the same time
Eiss *. Hsstrsct Court.
James Il. Yong ys. flag gaZine Street Raj
DAD Company OF Jefferson City, ct 81. IL
This case the following exceptions were tiled
Yesterday by /. 3. Cotton, for defendants
That there was d suit Instituted in the Sec
ond Judicial District Court tor the parish gg
Jeff.rson. in the meTTsh Of March, GS70, eG-
titled the Magazine Railroad Company ci
Jefferson City vs. James Il. Young and 3he
CITY of Jef3s rson, ar ! in which an injunction
issued restrainlng said Young. ana C,tg o.
jefferson EcoIa interfering, direCcy Or -ndl-
rectly, with said company IN the possess OIL
and eortro: of said railroad. and asking that
the pretended puEy base TO Young De de3reed
fraudulent and simulated, and the property
therein described be decreed to belong TO
the Magazine Street Railroad Company OF
jefferson City, and that said suit has oeen
transferred undgr the law, and is now pend
ing III this court, and the object aud puT-
poses D. said suit present TIE fatie Issue
that is presented in this litigation, ana your
. nix a
as q bs- to this action.
motion tor ismiss was mace by ulge d.
&. Gotten, on the following grounds;
!. That the a.lrety on the bond is insolvent.
and not such e3 the law requires.
2. The affidavit On whlcn the injunction
was issued ID -alse in every particular.
3. There is now pending III tins court az
Injunction sr;t in the name OF the Magazine
Street Ra;lrcad Company OF jefferson City,
against James II. Yeung, WhIchsWas lnsti-
tuted 10 the Second Judicial District Court
of the rayjeh OF jefferson, and transferred
to this copr:, in which an Injunction wsd
issued and served. before this cult YVES
brought, restraining the SAID Young from
interfering with said railroad company,
which sait and order OF ipi JUNCTION s P!ehoec
in the ba- 10 this action and injunction
herein sued ont.
I. That the suit and Injunction issued
against George Mertz, Peter t s+5er, John
Steib, yoseoh kreiger and Charles Ledlg, Is
without the shadow Of law and authority
and is brought for no other prrpose than TO
yex ard aarass them. as dlscioee@ W the
petition and atfidaylts OIL file.
5. The petition and act disclose such g
state OF s&cts as to authorize ths court to
dissolve the Injunction.
.rour,h District Co1r.
Tooarr & Armory vs.. Theodore. Theme
man.-ln this case Judge Thear6 yesterday
decided that sale OF cotton IS q cash trans
action, which, by the usage OF commerce,
ought to oe settled within tive days. II the
purChasar, when so requested, Goes not re
cei7e the cotton during that time. the sale
is rescinded. ! do not deem it necessary to
nut the purchaser III default after the eS-
piration OF the five days He lG II detsJ-it
by the mere act OF his negligence. A sim
pie notice that the sale Is re:clndet /: amply
sufficient 70 put an end TO the transaction.
Plaintiffs claim rejected, with costs.
~even,h District Court
CITY Of New Orleans VS.. Van Norden X Go.
Plainuf brought a suit for s309. the amount
Of a license tax imposed on the defendants
as commission merchants. Judge Colens
Yesterday rendered a decision II favor OF
the city. and rejecting the plea IN co22pen-
sation, presented by defendants, with costs.
.E,gh,h Bi.trfct Court.
State e. rel, Mrs. j. c. de st. Romes VS..
Ieyee Steam Cotton Press.-ln this case
plaintiff ayers that she is the owner OF sixty
six shares OF the Levee Steam Cotton Fcess
Company, and that one Peter Deverges,
deceased, some time in the ye2r 1852, did
illegally and fraudulently transfer said
shares, without her knowledge or consent.
Relatrix ayers that the secretary and presi-
dent of said company have refused to lnforE
her in whose name said shares are register
ed on their books, and she asks that man
damus issue directing that she be permitted
to examine the books for the pSrpose OF
obtaining the desired information.
Judge nIb5le yesterday rendered de-
cision in the case, which thus concludes:
The remedy of the relatrix is clearly by
the writ sought. By permitting the rela-
.rix to examine the books Of the company,
The respondent sacrifices no right, either OF
It's own or of acy one else. Such privilege
granted to relGtTiX decides nothing as be-
tween her and any one else. 1t is ordered
Shat the writ be made peremptory, as prayed
for in the petition"
The following bill of exception to the au-
thority Of the court was taken by Mr.. Ger-
mzdeZ ana signed by Judge Dibble:
BE it remembered, that on the trial of this
case, the defendant offered to Introduce
evidence, both oral and written, TO show
that Thomas Lynne who claims TO be the
clerk of the Eighth District Court for the
PARISH of Orleans, and that II. c. Dibble,
who claims to be the Judge Of said Court,
were not elected to the said offices, but were
appointed thereto Ey the Governor of this
State, and that said Offices never were filed
by any incumbent prior to said appoint
ment: that counsel for the relatOr objected
to the introduction OF any evldenae on the
ground that the right Of said Clerk and
Judge could not be attacked and questioned
in the form attempted; and said objection
being sustained OF the grounds that IL is not
competent tor any person or persons TO
question the validity ct the commission OF
the Judge and Clerk, or their power to sit
or act, unless by proceedings taken by the
State through the Attorney General OF the
State. The defendant was not allowed to
introduce any evidence.
Whereupon he took the present bill OF ex-
ceptions in open court to the ruling so made,
and the same is signed to attest the verify
of its contents, after due reading thereof in
presence of the opposing counsel.
State ex rel. Joseph Hanlon VS.. James
Graham, State Auditor.-In this case Judge
Dibble yesterday rendered the following de-
cision:
This is an application on the part of
Joseph Hanlon, Clerk of the Fourth District
Court for the parish of Orleans, for q writ
of mandamus to compel the Auditor of Pub
lie Accounts to issue TO him warrant for
1885 40, claimed to be due him for costs III
certain State suits instituted by Mahan, a
State tax collector.
The petition AYERS that an appropriation
has been made by the proper authorities to
pay these costs, but that the respondent re-
fuses to issue q warrant for the same.
The State Auditor appears by the Attorney
General, and for return alleges
/. That the State is not liable for the claim
sued upon, TOR, if the costs were incurred,
they were unauthorized.
z. That if the State is liable, the bill is
opH cbouIS no raIr7ceJ foa