New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-28

tudl SOllpdul.
City of New Orleans VS.. New Orleans
Mutual Insurance Company.
City of New Orleans VS.. Crescent Mu
tual Insurance Company.
City OF New Orleans VS.. Factors and
Traders Insurance Company.
Baldwell VS.. Sewell
Meagher VS.. Reading.
Succession of Ibos.
Walton VS.. New Orleans, jackson and
Great Northern Railroad Company.
Succession of Slade.
Bird VS.. Durable, Sheriff ct ais.
Williams vs.. city of New Orleans.
Belot vs. city of New Orleans.
Dittmer and Pelle VS.. Germania Insurance
Company.
Morana VS.. Shaw ct ais.
Band VS.. Lemee, attorney for absent
heirs.
Vented vs. Robinson and Reid.
Ninos vs. Merchants Mutual Insurance
Company.
- Moss VS.. Howard Preston and Barrett.
Case VS.. Taylor.
Stauffer Kent & Co. VS.. Healy.
Harris VS.. Nassits & Bro.
Hernandez VS.. James
Ferret VS.. Bank of America
Rehearings were granted in the following
cases:
Field VS.. Bayou Sara Packet Company.
Southern Dry Dock Company VS.. Bayou
Sara Company.
Eighth District Court-No Jury Trial for
Blue Metropolitan Warrant Holders
New Trials Refused, etc.
In the case of G. Esnard ct ais VS.. city of
New Orleans ct ais, Judge Dibble has de,
Hvered an opinion overruling the motion to
rescind the order granting trial by Jury
He says in his opinion:
The several plaintiffs joining in this suit
claim to own large number and amount
of warrants issued by the Board of Metro
politan Police. This action was brought to
compel the officers of the city of New Or
leans to make provision for the payment of
such warrants, in accordance, it is alleged,
with certain statutory provisions. The pro-
p cess asked for is a writ of Injunction to re-
strain the city and its officers from passing
any ordinance or resolution until these war
rants are provided for, and to compel such
provision to be made.
After hearing a rule nisi, preliminary
injunction was refused, it appearing to the
court that if the writ could lie at all. il
should only issue after full hearing and a
determination of the facts involved. The
defendants were, therefore, held to answer
The city of New Orleans, in its answer
prays for a trial by jury. The plaintiffs
however, have made a motion to have the
prayer for trial by jury disregarded, and
to have the case set for trial To this mo- |
ton the defendants object.
Plaintiffs counsel insists that under
articles 756 and 757 of the Code of Practice, |
and the decisions thereon, this case should |
be decided without the intervention of . |
ury.
nc is clear that if this is summary pro- |
ceeding neither party can require jury; |
but it can not be so considered now When |
an application for the writ of Injunction is |
made, the judge determines whether the
arguments of the plaintiff authorize a pre-
lminary writ This is necessarily sum
mary, and may be held upon an ex parte
showing, or after the defendant has been
notified to show cause. Having been issued
the writ may be dissolved summarily upon
hearing of rule. But it has been held that
the only injunction cases which are to be
tried summarily are those in which no Sc
curlty is required to be given. Cummings
VS.. Police Jury of Rapides An, ga. These
are the cases arising under articles 739, 740
and 74l, c. p, when the debtor enioins an
executory process.
The several cases cited, in which the
Supreme Court is said to have held that
1.-The trial of an Injunction is a summary
proceeding, in which neither party is emit
tied TO jury" arose under these articles of
the Code of Practice.
But plaintiffs insist that there is nethinp !
at issue in the case but question of con- {
;titutional law, which should be tried bv |
,he court as peremptsry exception-as a 1
demurrer. S
How far this objection might be good it '
S not necessary to consider, because an c
examination Of the answer of defendants
shows that they have made general denial, Y
Nhlle specially pleading certain issues
[ his plea puts at issue material questions t
u 1act involves the determination of the T.
and genuineness of the instru- h
nents upon which plaintiffs declare. v
The motion n rpEniu1 +bo n
trial by jury is therefore overruled Il
New trials have been refused in the fol- O
owing cases: %
The State ex rel. Collens and Tabor VS.. G
Hired Shaw, Administrator of Public Ac- b
cunts. 81
J. c: Fulton, tutor, VS.. John Burgoyne,
dminis traitor. Or
The jury term in the Eighth District T
curt will begin on the first Monday in m
une. II
Seventh District Court. in
Members of the bar are notified that the ii
Iocket of this court is now clear. "
Sixth District Court. L
r. NJ. Fisk, brought before this court on IL
rule to show cause why he should not be nt
unlshed for contempt, in refusing to com ~ y,
~ win the order of court commanding r.
I'M TO pay, certain alimony, has been sen W W
5hceo 10 the Parish Prison for ten days in
ourth District COurt-Jury Term-Suit h,
Against the Ship Island Canal Com DC
pany. in
The time of the Fourth District Court, ri
udge 1heard, was occupied Yesterday by
corning with the calling of iuries. A panel st
some, three hundred jurors had been
rawn, but only about one hundred and pc
llrty answered to their names The iurv in
rm will commence on Monday the TWEEN at
ninth instant, and the jury cases will or
cupy the time of the court up to the I'll
ose of the session, the third of july. The
ridays, however, will be devoted to trials BY
rules, exceptions and cases not of an sh
binary nature. The following notice, cia
lich we publish for the information of all sh;