New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-26
THE COURTS.
Eiahth District Court.

William Durbridge VS.. James Graham
State Auditor.
In this case petitioner alleges that unde
and in pursuance OF act %, passed Dy TN
| vide for the improvement of the navigation
| of Red River" the commissioners namet
| in said act made a cOntrect with George
| Alban and A. j. Oliver, for the performance
| of the work therein contemplated.
| 1t is alleged that said Alban and Oliver
| having no pecuniary means for prosecuting
said work, made an agreement with peti
toner, whereby in consideration of certain
advances therein provided for, they stipu
lated that when the said work or any por
ton thereof should be completed, the Ger
tifcates and bonds thereof should be re
ceived by your petitioner, and by him alone,
for the purpose of reimbursing him for his
advances and cOmpensating him therefor.
Petitioner shows that the work, in accord
ance with said law, was divided into four
sections, payments to be made on the COM
pletiOn OF each; that three of said sections
were completed, and certificates given there
for, amounting to $S5 900, which certificates
were received by petitioner, and are still
held by him, but that the bonds therefor
were not issued to him in consequence of the
Governor declining to sign the same.
Petitioner AYERS that said Alban & Oliver.
Notwithstanding their agreement, and for
the purpose Of defrauding him, combined
with G. NJ. Wicklitfe, late Auditor, and OBJ
tanned from him certificates of indebted
ness for the amOnnt, in sums of $1,000 each,
to the amount of SS5,O0O with the intent OF
defrauding petitioner.
Petitioner AYERS that some persons are
endeavoring to obtain payment of the cer-
titicates from the floating debt fund, and he
therefore asks an injunction prohibiting the
Auditor from auditing said certificates. The
injunction was issued as prayed for.
+. &. Mahan Va. Antoine Dubuclet, State
Treasurer.-In this case plaintiff states that
as State Tax Collector OF the First District
of the city of New Orleans, he received Sl4,-
Az 66 in State warrants, and that they
were stolen from him. He asks mandamus
compelling the State Treasurer to give him
credit for the amount OF the missing war
rants.
The case was argued yesterday morning
before Judge Emerson, acting in place OF
Judge Dibble, and taken under advisement.
The Ship Island Canal Case.
George F. Brott vs.. City of New Or
leans.-This case came up yesterday in the
Eighth District Court, on the exception
filed by Hays & New to the authority of
Judge Emerson to preside in the Eighth
District Court in the absence of Judge Dib-
Bile. Major New, on the part of the Ship
Island Canal Company, argued that Judge
Dibble had no right to leave his post, and
that the Governor was not authorized to
grant him leave of absence. 1t was the
Legislature alone that could grant such
leave. The law creating the Eighth Dis
trict Court provided that it should remain
in session all the year. Major New also
argued that the law which provided for the
interchange of judges was inconsistent
1t provided that in the absence Onileave, legal
ly obtained. of judge of one of the District
Courts of the parish of Orleans, his place
should first be filled by the Judge of the
First District Court during one week. then
by the Judge of the Second District Court
the succeeding week. and afterward by the
Judge of the Third District Court, and 50 on
to the end of the list. The law establishing
the First and Second District Courts also
provided that the judges thereof should
keep their courts open all the year round
and it was inconsistent in providing that
these judges should sit on the benches of
two different courts at one and the same
time. The argument will be resumed to-
day.
Seventh District Court.
We are pleased to note the return to his
post of Mr.. Herman j. DussOr principal
clerk OF this court, from a flying trip to the
North.
The Bank of Louisiana Bankruptcy Case.
The indefatigable and inexhaustable at
torneys of the Bank Commissioners, who
are struggling so hard to keep the liquida-
ton of this old institution in the Sixth Dis
trict Court, have achieved another success
which is quite remarkable. Having ap-
pealed from the decision of Judge Durell of
the United States District Court, ordering
the bank to be brought into bankruptcy
and administered by assignees appointed by
the Court, the attorneys of the commission
ers imagined that the officers of the bank
would be tied up, and held by the Sixth
District Court until their appeal was deter
mined. 1t is the same vexatious question
which arose on the writs of error in the
pend the execution of the Judgment of the
United States Court . Did it leave the as
sets and affairs of the bank in the hands of
the commissioners. as they were when the
Judgment appealed from was rendered, or
did it authorize the assignees in bankruptcy
to proceed with the liquidation of the bank
rs an insOlvent corporation!
This was the question prOpOunded to
Judge Durell after Justice Bradley had left,
and which the former judge decided in favor
Of the assignees in bankruptcy. This ruling
took the attorneys for the commissioners by
surprise, and drove them to another North
ern flight. Judge Bradley was hunted up
somewhere in New Jersey, and persuaded
to make an appointment to hold session
If his court at jackson, Mississippi, to be-
,n on the third of August. 1t may be that
1ther business requires the attention of
Judge Bradley at Jackson, or we should
certainly be provoked to express our sur
Prise that the judge should give the prefer
,nce to that diminutive village over this
great and now healthy city-the healthiest
II the Union.