New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-27
THE COURTS,
United States Circuit Court - Judge
Woods.


Cargo Appeal from the United States Dis
trict Court, Judge Durell.-In this case yes
terday. in deciding the mott n OF claimant
A. s. Mansfield and his sureties, to dismis
the appeal, Judge Woods, after contrasting
the position assumed by A. 3. Mansfield II
appearing in the court below, and there
getting possession of the property libeleG
under his claim that said property was hi
only, with the position here assumed by
him, that said property was enemies prop
erty, and as such was captured by the
United States. said:
"The case must be clear one in which q
court would allow such motion to prevail.
l take tine law to be, as stated by the
distinguished gentlemen who appear for
property by military forces vests
the title absolutely in the
| sovereign or government, and that title can
not be adjudicated by the court. But a
government rs we'll as an individual may
have more than one title to tie same pro-
perty. The libel alleges that this property
was seiz as forfeited and alleges mum.
Der of grounds for forfeiture. II the aver.
ments in the libel are true, they give the
United States title, which they may insist
| Oh, and may have adjudicated in the courts,
| and the fact that they have another title,
| which they may not choose to set up. seems
to me no reason why they should not insist
here on the one under which they do claim.
The title set up in this case is not the title
of capture, but the title OF seizure as tor
| telted. The existence of another title con-
stitutes no reason why the court should not
-diudicate upon this. Let the motion be
| Gi missed.
! Upon presentation of the merits of the
case for the government by Judge Whitaker,
| the counsel for claimant stated that they did
not desire to argue against the condemna-
| a. e xLa l>,,k
| ton, the court should decide to enter de-
cree of condemnation, they desired to be
heard as to the form of such decree, mas.
| much as the claimant and some OF his
snreties were bankrupt.
| sixth District Court-su!ts against the
Metropolitan Police Board.
In this court yesterday over for'y police
| men brought suit against the Metropolitan
Police Board. Their petitions are in form
substantially as follows:
Petitioner AYERS that he was appointed a
patrolman of the Metropolitan Police Dis
trict On the first of October, 1868,
and served until the thirty. first Septem-
| Der, 1862 the salary allowed him by
| law being one thousand dollars a year.
That the General Assembly passed an act
dated the third of March, 1870, which
provides that: Whereas, seeing the great
opposition shown by the different city Off
etc., the Metropolitan police were forced to
receive warrants for their salaries, instead
OF currency, thereby causing them to lose
thirty cents on the dollar" The said Jaw
provides that the Metropolitan Police Board
be instructed to pay in warrants each officer
and member Of the police thirty per cent on
each warrant issued to them for the fiscal
year 1863.
Petitioner AYERS that by virtue of said
law he is entitled to be paid the sum OF -,
being the amount Of thirty per cent on the
warrants received by him during the year.
Petitioner shows that the said Board of
Police deny his right to receive the same by
virtue of section three of said act.
The amounts claimed in these several
suits average $3.50, or about SIS, 600.
Durbridgev VS.. Grace.-This case was, on
motion of counsel, continued until Tues
day, the thirty-hrst instant.
Eighth District Court.
Police Jury, right bank, parish of Jeffer-
son, VS.. city of New Orleans.-In this case it
appears that Philip Drum leased the Gretna
Ferry for q term of ten years, commencing
on the first of January, 1866. Ia considers
tion for the ferry privilege he executed bis
nineteen promissory notes for $500 each,
payable haif-yeary. By notarial act the
Police Jury of Jefferson were to have one
third of these notes. They have all been
paid as far as due, and the city of New Or
leans has received the money. OF the
amount collected S720 are yet due to the
petitioners, and they ask a mandamus to
enforce payment.
Mr.. Rufus NAPLES, Assistant City Attor-
ney, objected that this was proceeding by
which plaintiff sought to obtain al eXecu.
ton before judgment. He argued that the
proper mode of proceeding would be by an
ordinary action.
Mr.. NAPLES filed an answer and excep-
tiOns. as follows:
l. That this court has no jurisdiction to
issue writ of mandamus in this case.
2. That mandamus can not be made per.
emptory against an alleged debtor, to make
him pay a debt not acknowledged and not
iudicially ascertained.
3. That if the prayer of the petitioners
was granted, the effect Of a judgment would
be accomplished without the joinder of
issue, and without default.
4. That this proceeding is without au-
thority of law. Wherefore defendants pray
that this proceeding be dismissed. with costs.
Mr. Fisk, District Attorney pro TEN. for
the parish of Jefferson, appeared on the
part of the plaintiff.
The argument in the case was continued
until Tuesday, the thirty-frs instant.
The jackson Railroad Case.
State ex rel. H. s. McComb ct al. vs.. GIT.
Beauregard ct ai.-This case, wherein rela-
tors asked writ Of quo aodyrdpto, came up
for examination this morning.
Judge Campbell presented certain inter.
rogatories on facts and articles to be an
swered by McComb.
Major New, for relator, objected that it
was too late to amend the pleadings after
case had been fixed for trial.
Major New read the recent decision OF the
Supreme Court. in the matter OF Case, Re-
ceiver of the First National Bank, in sup
port of his position. He showed that Nc
Comb resided in the State of Delaware, and
quoted articles from the Code of Practice to
show that his testimony should be taken by
commission. The fact that McComb resides
in Delaware appeared in the petition.
Mr.. Semmes, for relator, quoted 9th an.
nual, page 1874, to the effect that no amend
ment of the pleadings can be allowed after
a cause is fixed for trial. He showed that
there was no day fixed in the order for the
relatOr to answer the interrOgatores. There
was no certain day named tor the answers
to be made, and specific day must be fixed
by the court.
He therefore moved that the order to an
swer within 1.-The legal delay" should be
stricken out of the proceedings. MIR. Semmes
read numerous authorities IN support OF this
position.
The case was continued until Tuesday, the
thirty first infant.
Sixth District Court.
The case of Chubbuck vs.. Frizzell, hereto.
fore noticed as having been filed in this
court, has been dismissed.
Removal OF Political Disabilities.
The following names are in the bill now
pending in Congress for removal of disabil.
tiles, all being Louisianans: