New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-29


dered by the Supreme Court yesterday:
Chief Justice Ludeling delivered the fol
| lowing:
Sandidge VS.. Sanderson. Former decre'
sustained, and rehearing refused.
Sasterdeld VS.. Spuriock. Rehearing re
fused.
Dubose VS.. 8. Arnaud. Judgment affirmed
Jotffay VS.. Bruff. Appeal dismissed.
Castillo VS.. Thiel. Motion to dismis
| overrued.
Case, Receiver of First National Bank, vs
| Berwin. Judgment reversed.
Case, Receiver of First National Bank, VS.
| Stur6en. Judgment reversed.
Case, receiver of First National Bank, VS.
Hawley. Appeal dismissed.
Prescott VS.. Gordon & Bates. Judgmen
| reversed.
Durbin VS.. McMichael. Reversed.
Fennison VS.. Pennison. Reversed.
Succession of Jean Pargoud. Reversed.
| BY Judge TaiiaterrO- Succession OF Wa,
terson. Appeal dismissed.
Shelton vs.. Brown. Judgment affirmed.
Bauer VS.. Antoine. Judgment reversed
| and case remanded.
| Weiderecbt Va. Beigel. Judgment af
irmed.
Eigelberger vs. Pike Affirmed.
| Hanalson VS., Boyle. Judgment affirmed
| Heath VS.. Shremp x Co. Judgment al
frmed.
Mrs. johnson, wife, ct al vs.. Stevens
Judgment reversed.
Falls, Howell s. Co. VS.. Thomas. Judg
ment amended,
G. H. sloconib & Co. VS.. Cage, Sheriff:
Affirmed.
E. NJ. Breand VS.. Parish Of Ibervile. Re.
versed.
By Judge Howell-Fort. administrator, vs..
Deio and 7. c. Reilly. Affirmed.
Sadler VS.. Gayle. Affirmed.
State VS.. r. Durbin. Affirmed.
Dewey VS.. T. j. Budd. Affirmed.
Dewey VS.. James Stewart. Affirmed.
Gribble vs.. Haynes. Reversed.
T. G. Davidson ys. TAYLOR. Affirmed.
Giquel vs.. Daigle. Affirmed.
Where VS.. Buttman. Affirmed.
By Judge Wyly-Sinnot, Il Adams VS..
Talaferro dissenting.
State VS.. II. Durbin. Affirmed.
Greeves VS.. Louisiana State Bank. Judg-
ment affirmed, with concurring opinions by
Chief Justice Ludeling, Justices Howell and
Howe. Justice TalIaferro dissenting.
Liquidator of Clinton and Port Hudson
Railroad Company VS.. Samuel Lee. Re
versed.
Spank VS.. D. c. Hardee. Reversed.
Barron VS.. A. Reid, deceased. Affirmed
Sibley Guion vs.. Ferrie Brothers At
frmed.
StlnSON VS.. LIE l4leYr0. reversed.
Succession of Wilder. Reversed.
ByJudge Howe-D. Almond VS.. DuOose.
Affirmed.
Ogier VS.. Marchand. Reversed and re-
manded.
Campbell VS.. CLARK. Reversed and re-
manded.
s. Duncan VS.. Brandon. Reversed and
renanded.
Palmer VS.. Marston. Affirmed.
Saigle VS.. Bird. Affirmed.
Bernard VS.. Ledot. Reversed.
Provosty VS.. Carmouch. Amended and
otherwise affirmed.
Eighth District COurt-Judge DibbIe.
State ex rel. Joseph Hanlon VS.. James
Graham, Auditor.-In this case the petition
sets forth that the State of Louisiana is in-
de oted to him in the sum of 1885 40 for
costs of court incurred in the institution of
large number Of suits against delinquent
tax payers by F. G. Mahan, State Tax Col
lector, which the defendant refuses to pay.
Petitioner prays that 6 mandamus be issued
directing the Auditor TO issue warrant on
the State Treasurer for the amount claimed.
The Attorney General files an answer to
the effect that the State is in no manner
liable for the amount claimed, as the costs
incurred were unauthorized and excessive.
Also, that if any amount is found to be due
the Auditor Is unable to issue warrant for
the same, as no appropriation has been
made to meet it. Defendant asks that the
suit be dismissed.
The Eighth District Gourt-Et Is Decided
not to De as Court
G. NJ. Freret VS.. the Southern Bank-In
this case, Judge Cooley, of the Sixth District
Court, yesterday delivered lengthy opin-
ion, that would occupy about three COL
umns, which we coDdense, as follows:
Defendant in this case has asked that it
be transferred to O tribunal styled the
Eighth District Court for the parish of Or
leans.
The ground taken is tnat this is an injunc-
ton suit, and that the Sixth District Court
has been divested Of its jurisdiction by the
act creating the Eighth District Court. This
act does not exclude, in my opinion, the
jurisdiction OF this court in cases of this ma
ture. Under the terms Of the sixth section
of the act OF March 16, 1870, this court has
the same powers as that granted to the
Eighth District Court. The jurisdiction of
the seven District Courts is conferred by the
constitution of 1868, and the Legislature has
no power to impair that jurisdiction. The
grant OF specific powers by the constitution
TO the different departments of the govern
ment makes them independent of each
other.
The Judge, in the course Of his argument,
says: "Under the constitution this (the
slXtE court mas the power to give to sultors
the benefits afforded by these the seven
district) courts, ard SO long as the legisla-
tive power recognizes their existence as
legal remedies. it can not deprive this court
OF the power of issuing them, by investing
another court with the right, exclusively, to
use them.
BY the constitution Of 1868, the people of
Louisiana reserved to themselves the right
OF selecting the judges and clerks of the dis
trict courts, and except i'll case Ofa vacancy
no other power but the people at the ballot
box can make q judge or clerk in Louisiana.
The Supreme Court of the State. in the case
Of kreider ct ais, arising IN the town Of
Jefferson, laid down the correct doctrine to
the effec. that the Governor could only
appoint in case of vacancy; and that the
failure to hold an election did not create
vacancy.
Aif Ortior:, it can not be said there is a
vacancy in the Office of Judge of the Eighth
Court, for the simple reason that nobody
ever occupied it, it being a recent creation.
consider the act in question as mon
strosity, not only in point of its unconstitu-
tionality, but in almost every other respect.
The pretence of reorganizing seven courts
and only mentioning SIX, leaving the Grim.
inal court in the cold of death, is quite sug-
gestive of the haste with which it was writ.
ten aud passed.
Its language is singularly ambiguets and
contradictory; indeed, some passages are so
contradictory with eSch other o. to leave
the mind In doubt as to whether II was not
the serious intention Of the author Of the