New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-25
NEW ORLEANS SATURDAY,
THE COURTs.

TH1 COURTS.
Eighth District Coart-Intyusioa In OAee.
A. Cazabat vs.. Moses Fog ct sl.-In this
case plaintiff AYERS that Moses Fox and
Jacob Joachim are unlawtully holding and
usurping the office of constable of pretend.
ed Eighth Justices Court of the parish OF
Orleans, and executing the duties of the
same, that there is no such Office known to
or recognized by law, as constable afore-
said. and said parties are without authority
to act as sudp; that all the acts and proceed
ings of said pretended constables are null
and void, and without force or effect.
Petitioner alleges that unless eDjoined and
prohibited by this court, said parties will
proceed to sell his property. situated in New
Orleans, and valued at $4,000. For the
reasons alleged plaintiff asks an injunction
against the parties defendant. Judge Dibble
granted the injunction, fixing the bond at
5000.
The Civil Rights Case.
The case of C. A. Weed, asking writ of
habeas corpus before Judge Durell, in the
United States Circuit Court. did not come
up yesterday. 1t is expected the Judge
will deliver his opinion this morning.
The United States Circuit Court will ad-
jpurn for the summer on Monday next.
United States Clrcult Ceurt.-Judge
Durell.-A SlaughterhOuse Case.
In the matter of Paul Esteben ct ais,
praying for a writ of mandamus, Judge Du-
rell yesterday delivered the following de-
cision:
In this case petitioners represent that they
are defendants in certain suit now pend
parish Of Orleans, which suit is entitled
Estate Of Louisiana ex REL, S. Belden, At
torney General, vs. William Pagan ct ais. -"
that their rights could not be enforced, and
will be denied them in the Eighth District
Court-that their prayer for removal OF said
suit to this court, as claimed under the con-
stitution of the United States, and especi-
ally under the act of April 8, 1866, popularly
called the civil rights bill, has been refused
by said Eighth District Court; therefore,
petitioners ask for rule nisi upon Honor
able Henry c. Dibble, Judge of the said
Eighth District Court, to show cause why
peremptory nandamus should not issue.
handing him to allow said petition of
removal, aud that after due proceedings,
said rule be made absolute and said writ OF
mandamus issue.
The right of removing, under the "civil
rights bill" suits commenced in the State
courts is defined in section three of the act
of April 8, 1866, to be in the manner pre-
scribed in the habeas corpus act of March 3,
1868, and all acts amendatOry thereof.
Referring to the last named act. find that
it makes no provision for the proceedings to
be had in the Circuit Court in case of the
refusal OF the State Court to grant the peti.
tion for removal of case alleged to be with.
in the scope of the act
But on May II, 1866, the next month after
the passage of the civil rights bill. as if in
contemplation of such refusal, Congress
passed an act amending the habeas corpus
act, wherein, in sections four and five, it
especially provides for the mode of proce-
dure in case the State court refuses to allow
the removal of case, by docketing the
case in this court, with or without copies of
pleadings from the State court; and section
four provides that in case entitled to be
removed to this court, the proceedings in
for removal shall be null and void.
The writ OF msndamus, says Justice
Clifford in Riggs vs.. johnson county,
Wallace, p. 166, ''can only be issued by
these courts in cases where the jurisdiction
already arises, and not where it is to be ac-
qured by means of the writ"
est will not be granted" said the Supreme
Court, in United States VS.. Judge Lawrence,
3 Dallas, AZ, ''to compel judge to decide
according to the dictates OF any judgment
but his own"
"a mandamus to a court implies some
censure on it as we'll as on the party" says
Judge Woodbury., in Ladd vs.. Tudor, in Sd
Woodbury. and Minot 325, (in case where
q writ of mandamus was asked to be issued
from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
to State court of Maschusetts,) ''and is,
therefore, not to be issued when there has
been, to appearance, an honest exercise OF
discretion confded to it by law
1t is not necessary in this case to decide
whether, for reasons given in the above
cited cases, the writ of mandamus should
issue in this case; it is sufficient and conclu-
sive to know that a plain, adequate and
complete remedy is provided for the petit
TONERS in the amendment to the G. Habeas
corpus act" of May IL, 1866, sections four
and five.
And as believe the sound rule of law to
be that laid down by the Supreme Court in
Peters, SOL, Life and Fire Insurance Com.
pany VS.. wilson: "The writ of mandamus is
subject to the legal and equitable discretion
of the court. and it ought not to be issued in
cases of doubtful right I must decline to
allow the rule niSi prayed for, and to issue
the writ of mandamus in this case.
Let the petition be dismissed at cost OF
petitioners.
Eighth District Court.
Deter, -Goldstein i Co. vs.. Levee Steam
Gotten Press ct al. In this case plain
PENDANTS from prosecuting number
of small suits before Justice Collins,
which originally constituted a single
claim for large amount, and alleged to
have been divided up so as to bring the
claims within the jurisdiction of Justice
of the Peace. The case turns upon the
point whether the amount in controversy
is due on one single transactisn or on many.
The motion to dissolve the Injunction was
overruled and the case continued indof.
nitely.