New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-11-09
THR COURTS.
The Great Jefferson City improvements
Case.

Case.
State ex rel. II. II. Romine VS.. j. K. West,
Administrator of Improvements.-ln THIS
case wherein relatOr and Others had maae
contracts for making important improve,
ments in the late City Of Jefferson. counsel
for relator, +. N. Butler, +. G. Billings and
r. King Cutler Yesterday presented, III the
Eighth District Court, a brief embracing
their closing argument, i'll reply to an audl-
tonal brief presented by the Assistant Clty
Attorney.
With regard to the exhorbitant rates al
legged to have been stipulated III the con-
tract with ROmine, the counsel tor reiator
say:
The record shows that at the time the
agreement was entered into, the contract
price was to be paid in bonds of the City OF
Jefferson at thirty years, then worth m the
market not more than fifty cents Oh the
dollar By reducing the contract price to
cash basis. your Honor will be able to per
ceiye the true figure at which the transac-
ton was closed; and, by comparing the re-
suit thus ascertained with the amount dis
closed by the testimony of w. II. Bell, Sur
veyor of the city of New Orleans, taken on
the trial of this cause, it will be seen that
the contract, so far from being entered into
at .exorbitant rates." was closed at a just
and reasonable sum.
Touching the legality Of the ordinance
under which the contracts were made, the
counsel argue as follows:
We will admit, for the sake of argument,
that after the sixteenth day of March, 1870,
the date at which the consolidation act took
effect the Common Council OF the City OF
jefferson was without the power of legisla-
ton The corporation. however, was not
for all purposes defunct: at all events, no
provision of the new charter OF the city OF
New Orleans can be found which prevented
legislation of the Common Council of the
CITY of Jefferson from acquiring the force
of law by the lapse of time. The five days
continued to rum notwithstanding the repeal
of the jefferson City charter. Days were
days, and five days elapsed, though Jetfer-
son City ceased to be, and the city Of New
| Orleans extended her limits through the in-
strumentality of the act OF consolidation.
But if it be true that five days could not in
| tervene. because the City OF Jefferson had
, ceased to exist-Or, in other words, because
| it was impossible, on account OF the repeal
| of the charter Of the City OF Jefferson,
| for five DAYS to have interviewed with
! iu the meaning of the law; then, and
! in that event, the ratification motion be-
| came binding as Il valid ordinance, i'll the
! absence of time above designated. The
| law does not require impossible things; and
| if five days could not have interviewed, such
| intervention remained no longer a sine qua
| non. 1t would be strange, nay, more. 1t
| would be unjust if it were otherwise. The
| Common Council of the City of Jefferson
| had duly passed the ordinance; the Mayor
| Of that city did not and could not veto it;
| and the ordinance would cOntessedly have
| acquired legal force had five days elapsed
| after its passage. This, it is cOntended. was
| rendered impossible by an act of the Legis-
| latme: and the only conclusion that can be
| drawn from the action OF the Legislature is,
| that the Intervention of five days is un-
| necessary, because impossible, and the ordi-
| nance takes effect without it.
| In conclusion counsel say: The city OF
| New Orleans has been stubborn in her de-
termination to prevent the Sixth District
! from realizing the benefit Of the contracts
entered into by innocent parties under the
ordinance passed by the Common Council OF
| the City of Jefferson; and led on by this de-
termined opposition. she has endeavorcd to
overthrow relator's cause by attempting to
| break down the testimony OF Caulkins and
Massie. In her weakness, in that respect.
we find our strength Their testimony will
be sustained by your Honor; and We trust
| by the force of their testimony, and the ap-
| plication of legal principles, your Honor
will see the way clear to protect relatoI
against the unjust and illegal conduct Of the
city OF New Orleans.
| Relator may he comparatively poor and
| weak. ana CQe cltN Ol ANcW OIlttie NrallH,s y
and powerful, but in the eye Of justice they
are equals. We confidently look for a
Judgment, censuring the repudiating spirit
of the city, and sustaining Romine in his
| equitable and legal rights.
Supreme Court.
| r. z. Smith VS.. City of New Orleans
This is suit brought in the Sixth District
Court to compel the city to pay about Stot
of what are known as city notes. The de
| tense was that the city was not liable, mas
much as the city could not legally issue
such notes. Judge Cooley gave judgmen,
in favor OF the plaintiff, and defendants ap
pealed. The case will be submitted or
| briefs.
| In the Supreme Court yesterday came uI
the case in which it was alleged that the
| Clerk of the Second District Court had re
fused to send up a transcript, and the qlles
| ton whether the defendant had been ten
dered his legal fees. The matter will come
up on its merits hereafter.
| Eighth District Court.
An agreement having been entered into
between the city authorities and certain
contractors to put in order the Orleans The
| atre Tor the accommodation Of the ThiFt
District Court, SO as to make room for the
Eighth District Court, it is understood thai
the city will Immediately take legal pro
ceedings against the contractors to compe
| a specific performance Of their contract.