New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-28
NEW ORLEANS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER
THE COURTS.
Fourth District Court.

Fourth District Court.
| City of New Orleans VS.. John +. Rust-A
| petition was filed yesterday morning.
| through the City Attorney, Mr.. George 5.
Lacey, in which it is set forth that John F.
Rust, a resident of this city, unlawfully pre-
tending to have entered into contract with
| the city of New Orleans made under pre-
tended ordinance NO 1Ol4, new series),
| alleged to have been promulgated on or
| about the twelfth of September, 1868, did,
at that time, or shortly afterward. COM
mence certain public works in the said city
| Of New Orleans, including, among other
things. the digging of certain canals and
the construction OF certain dams and levees;
that said Rust, at the time and under the
circumstances stated, did make or execute a
certain useless ditch or canal in the vicinity
of Bayou st. John; that this ditch or canal,
and the work then and there executed, was
done and performed in a negligent and un-
skillful manner, and that on account thereof.
and more particularly ON account Of the in
sufficient and bad levee constructed by de-
fendant during the fall Of 1869, the water
from Lake POntchartrain and the bayou
broke through the levees or dams, causing
an overflow, and producing damage to pro-
perty belonging to the city of New Orleans
in a sum not less than $4,000.
1t is further shown that during the time
of the construction of the work referred to,
defendant hauled away large quantity OF
dirt or earth belonging to the city, and ap-
prOpriated the same to his own use and ben
eft. the value of the earth or dirt appropri-
ated being not less than $4,000.
1t is further alleged that petitioner, with
out authority, made certain unsightly and
useless excavations in the public streets Of
the city. and thereby subjected the city to Il
loss and damage of not less than $4,000.
Petitioner, therefore, prays that John F.
Rust, in due course of law, may be con-
demned to pay the sum of $4,000, with five
per cent interest, and that the city recover
costs, and have general relief in the prem
ises.
Suit for Divorce.
Peter Papias vs. Mary Claverie, his wife.
In this case the plaintiff, who resides in this
city, represents that ON the seventh of Jan
uary 1868, in the Empire of France, he was
married to one Mary Claverie; and that
with said wife he came to this parish. Peti-
toner alleges that he has always conducted
himself as fond, faithful and attached
husband. and that he has no children.
Petitioner AYERS that the conduct of the
said Mary Clayerie is such as to render
further living with her insuppOrtable, and
that the continuance of the said marriage
would permanently destroy his happiness:
for this, that the said Mary Claverie, the
frisky lamb in addition to other outrages,
is addicted to browsing in green pastures
by the side of still waters or in palmer
language, is living openly with one Joe
Smith, in fagrant disobedience of the
seventh command.
For the reasons alleged he asks divorce.
Eighth District Court.
G. s. Walker vs. NJ. n Bowman and
reported, the defendants were enjOined
from occupying house for immoral pur-
poses. situated on Common street. in re-
spectacle neighborhood. Defendants have
taken rule as follows:
On motion of counsel for Hattie Hamil-
ton. it is ordered by the court that plaintiff
do show cause, if any he has or can have.
on Wednesday, the twenty-eighth day of
September, 1870. at ten o'clock A. M.. why
the writ of injunction herein issued shall
not be dissolved, with $500 damages and
$500 attorneys fees. and why judgments for
said amounts shall not be rendered against
the said plaintiff and the surety on the in
junction bond. on the following grounds
to wit:
l. Because the petition set forth no cause
for an injunction.
because no action of perjury would lie
therefrOm, and because the affidavit is not
such as the law requires.
s. Because the petition is vague and in
definite, and alleges no facts whatever as
against the present appearer
4. That nothing but hearsay facts of any
kind are set forth in plaintiffs petition, and
because an Injunction can not issue on ale
cations which can not be proved on the
trial of the cause.
s. Because the Code Of Practice specially
describes the causes ON which courts Of JUS
tice are authorized to issue writs of iniunc-
ton, and because plaintiff petition diecIoses
no such cause of acton.
6. Because the bond furnished by plaintiff
is insufficient in amount to protect defend
ant against probable and legal damages 10
accrue, should the injunction not be at once
dissolved.
I. Because the suretes on the bond are
not good and solvent, and not possessed OF
the qualifications required by law.
James H. Young vs.. Magazine Street
Railroad Company-Magazine Street Rail
road Company vs.. James II. Young-Maga-
zine Street Railroad Company VS.. City of
Jefferson.-The following rule has been
taken in this case:
On motion of counsel for John w. Hill
man, and on suggesting to the court that
one John Steib. one B. Saloy and one
Charles Lauer, have caused the Magazine
Street Railroad Company and all its appur-
tenances- property in litigation in the
above entitled suts-to be seized by the
Sheriff, under executOry process, in certain
suits in the honorable Seventh District
Court for the parish of Orleans, entitled
John Steib VS.. Magazine Street Railroad
Company, B. Saloy vs.. Magazine Street Rail
road Company, and Charles Lauer VS..
Magazine Street Railroad Company, Nos.
325O, 325l, 1852, and on further suggesting
to the court that the said railroad had been
previously sequestered by this court, and
John w. Hillman had been appointed
judicial seduestratOr or receiver. and
that the property of said railroad was
legally in the possession of or under the
control or jurisdiction of this court at the
time the process aforesaid issued. and upon
further suggestion that the said Saloy has
obtained writ Of injunction from the
Seventh District Court, to restrain and en-
join the said Hillman from receiving or
taking possession of the property in lltiga-
ton in the suits Nos. IL. 13 and IA in this
court. as will fully appear by record No.
1851 of the docket OF the Seventh District
Court aforesaid.
That the said suits in the Seventh Dis
trict Court are brought with view to
harass and defeat the action OF this court
and its officer. the said Hillman. and are in
contempt of the authority of this court.
The New York Express says:
The hay spectators and monopolists ex