New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-22

Board of Metropolitan Police VS.. 5. N.
Burbank.-In this case defendant has filed
the following answer to the rule for con-
tempt wherein he is ceasged with having
failed to account for about S65, 900 of funds
belonging to the Metropolitan Police Board
And now into court comes the defendant,
and for answer to the rule herein taken,
says, under OATH
l. That sd far as in his power he has COM
Piled with the iniunction herein issued, by
turning over to the Civil Sheriff all funds
and Metropolitan Police warrants of the
city of New Orleans, issued by the Board
OF Police, which ha received from the State
Treasurer, or warrants redeemed by him as
Treasurer of Police, except about 500 now
in the Southern Bank, and between $500
and 5000 Of special fund or funds on de-
posit, which last named funds he is ready
to turn over, as soon as the exact amount
can be ascertained and demand made there
for.
2. That he has never intended any dis
respect or contempt of this honorable court,
and is now willing to comply with all law
full orders of the court.
3. That he has not in his poseessio2, and
never has had, SO far as lie knows, any other
Metropolitan Police warrants, save those
mentioned in this answer.
4. Having done all in his power in answer
to the process and orders OF this court and
having been wrongfully, harshly and un-
Justly treated in this behalf, by an unscru
pulous adversary, the members of the Beard
of Metropolitan Police, as he verify believes,
he prays to have this rule discharged, and
that the plaintiffs be condemned to pay the
costs of this proceeding, reserving his right
to costs in other eases linked with this, and
his right to actions for damages against the
plaintiffs.
Action on the rule was postponed imlefi
nitely.
Deter, Goldstein g. Co., vs. Sawyer Hay
wood.-In this case plaintiffs have filed
petition to the following effect: They
represent that the defendant is, member of
an assertion known as the Cotton Press
Assoeiatiall," which is composed OF the
lessees and owners of all the cotton presses
of the city of New Orleans, except the
Safety Cotton Press.
Petitioners represent that the object OF
said association is to mOnOpOlize and con-
troll the handling of all the cotton brought
to this city, and that one condition of mem
bership in said association is, that no press
shall compete for business with the other
presses of said Association, and that in con-
sideration of withdrawing from competition,
the profits Of all business done shall be di-
yided among the presses that render no ser
vice to the owners and buyers OF cotton,
equally with those that do.
of said persons do no business, or very lit
tie. and that to furnish them their distribu-
tive shares of profits, the insurers and buy
ers of cotton are burdened with unjust and
extort,onate charges for the storage and
| handling and COMPRISING OF cotton.
| Petitioners represent, further, that In com
mon with the other owners and buyers OF
cotton. they have been subjected to the un--
| lust and excessive charges aforesaid, and
~ tbax bnx fn hnr(pns
| of said monopoly by having their cotton
| compressed at the ..Safety Cotton Press, "
| which is not connected with said asso-
| citation.
Petitioners represent that said association
| enforce their monopoly by OnerOus and un.
| lust demands upon all who seek to avoid
| their exactiOn and that the defendant, in
conformity with the rules Of the association,
| has charged petitioners twenty-five cents
per bale on ali the cotton stored in defend
ants press bought by petitioners since De
cember, 1861.
| 1t is alleged that this charge is made for
| allowing the cotton to be marked III thelI
| press. as was subsequently removed to be
compressed in the Safety Cotton Press.
Petitioners represent that the marking OF
| the cotton was done before it became thell
property, or they had become in any man
| ner responsible for the same, and that said
charges are not done by them.
1t is further represented that w. o. Bell,
secretary of the association and agent fol
the members thereof in collecting theil
illegal demands, has refused to receive
payment under protest, and declared thai
he would harass petitioners with multi
plicity of writs and costs, and that de
fendant. in accordance with this threat
divided his account Of 1851 50 into thirty
seven separate demands, upon each OF
which he brought suit before Justice
| Collins.
Petitioner charged that said association
is monopoly, which is burdensome and re
strictive of legitimate trade: is contrary t.
law, and that the means employed to en-
force said monopoly are oppressive and
illegal. ..
They charge that the numerous suit
aforesaid are brought to vex them and t.
multiply costs, and to prevent petitioner
from having their rights adjudicated b.
higher tribunals established by law to de
eide difficult questions of jurisprudence.
They ask an injunction restraining de
fendant from prosecuting the vexatious suit
aforesaid and demand damages to tn
amount of $780,
Judge Emerson granted the injunction
fixing the bond at $500.