New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-12
THU COURTS.
Eighth District Court-The Matter OF
Judges, Warrants A New Trial
GRANTED.

Eighth District Court-Ine Matter u
Judges, Warrants New Trial
Granted.
In the case of Isidore Newman VS.. the
State Auditor and Treasurer, applying for
a mandamus to compel the payment of GER
tain warrants known as judges warrants,
in which Judge Dibble endered @ decision
day before yesterday making the mandamus
perenrptory, Judge Dibble has ordered a
new trial ex-ofiicio, and fixed the same for
argument to-day, Friday, the twelfth in
slant.
In making this order, Judge Dibble said
that, in rendering his decision day before
yesterday, he had overlooked a provision
of the appropriation bill, which seemed to
put a new phase on the matter, and he de-
sired to hear argument thereon.
The Louisiana evee C~ompauy-The Ques-
lion of the state Debt.
In this case, in which it is sought to re-
strain the State Treasurer from issuing any
Y State bonds until the bonds awarded TO the
said company by al act of the late General
Assembly shall have been issued, Attorney
General Belden has filed the following an
swer in the Eighth District Court to prevent
the issuance of the writ, to wit:
!. Because plaintiffs petition sets forth no
cause or reason why an injunction should
issue as prayed for.
2. Because said company is without right
in law to interfere with, hinder or prevent
defendants, who are State officers, from the
performance Of duties imposed upon them
as officers and agents of the State of Lou
isiana.
3. Because the proceeding is premature,
even admitting that SAID company is enti-
tied to the writ of injunction, which is
denied.
A. That all the parties In interest are not
parties in this suit. 20
a NUhan tho oaca uoo aalla1 and hnfnra tha
answer was~filed, General L.. A. Sheldon,
member of Congress from louisiana, rose
and addressed the court, stating that he
was frank to confess that he appeared at
the instance of the Governor of the State,
whose only desire was that all the issues
growing out of the litigation concerning the
obligations of the State should be presented
and be judieially determined.
And in furtherance of this he would sug-
gest that all the parties interested who had
not been made parties to the suit should be
compelled to come in and intervene, so that
the public may know just how the State
stands in the matter of its debt.
1t was due to the people and to all the
creditors of the State that this question shall
be judicially determined.
Judge Dibble said he thought he could
make an order which would effect this OBJ
iect.
Judge Cotton said that it would be well
to have the matter delayed a little while,
and until the Supreme Court had passed
upon the question as to whether warrants
drawn against the general fund were State
obligations coming within the meaning of
the State debt as restricted by the amend
ment.
After considerable argument, in which
Judge Cotton made a hard fight 10 obtain
a preliminary Injunction or restraining Or
der, it was discovered, much TO the amuse-
ment of all, that the very order he had orr
ginally obtained contained the very re-
straining clause he was seeking to obtain.
This case as well as that of the State
House Commissioners, was continued over
until Wednesday. the twentY-fourth instant.
Suit Concerning Repairs to a Residence.
Jacob OFT VS.. E.. A.. Tyler Judge Dibble
has rendered the following opinion in this
ease:
The plaintiff. who is a mechanic and
builder, sues the defendant for the sum of
S3l56 rs, which he claims to be the balance
due him for repairing a house belonging to
the defendant, situated at No. sos st. |
Charles street. He alleges that he was en-
ployed by defendant to do the work, which
amounted in all to $4,000 rs, and that he
has received $3.50, leaving as q balance the
amount claimed.
The answer is a general denial. The evil
dence shows that the plaintiff furnished the
uSlCHudIll Il STATEMENT Oh Ilt DrODuDlc CtsC |
of the repairs needed; the work was not to
exceed the amount of $4,000.
Very little extra work was done, and such
work was not worth more than the amount
IN excess of $1,000 which the plaintiff has re-
ceived.
Two witnesses, who are practical builders,
swear that the whole house could have
been built for from SS00&to $4,000, and
yet the plaintiff claims $S,606 IS for re-
pairs.
i do not see that he has made out his
claim against the defendant.
1t is therefore ordered, adjudged and de-
creed that there be Judgment III favor of
the defendant against plaintiff, and that
the plaintiff pay costs.
The Suit TO Compel Payment of Blue
Metropolitan Warrants.
The suit of Esnard ct ais VS.. the city. to
contest the payment of a large amount of
blue metropolitan warrants, was up before
the Eighth District Court. Mr.. NAPLES,
for the city, takes the position that the
htigants can not join in one suit
against the city, Mr.. Filleul arguing that
they could. This point was submitted to
the court, and taken under advisement.
second District Court-The Moses Fox
Will Case.
Judge Duvigneaud has rendered an oral
in the above case upon the excep-
ton to the plea of res adjudicata filed and
by the counsel for Moses Fox, pray
ing to have probated an alleged codicii to
the will of the late John McDonogb.
The opinion was upon a motion for n new
the court refusing the same and decid-
Ing that the plea of res ddjudicdtd made by
The counsel for the cities of Baltimore and
New Orleans well taken and insurmounta-
DE
h defeated party will appeal.
United states Circuit Court.
Adams Daniels VS.. Lockett g. Lockett-
Judge Durell delivered the following oral
which was taken down by their
.tenographer:.
The defendants, Lockett & Lockett, were
merchants, doing business in
he city of New Orleans in 1862. In the
winter and spring of that year they fur A.!
lished plantation supplies to a gentleman l
FAMED Mortimer, who was at this time a
of the State of Mississippi, and a
of cotton. Mortimer, the same &
ear in the spring, witls Others, his partners :,
u the planting of cotton, also made pro- $
,osals To Danials through his tDaniels) :
to furnish them with plantation sup (
lies, STIMULATING that under the laws of {
Mississippi the furnisher of said supplies
hould nave a mortgage upon the growing I
'rop, together with a privilege, and pledg- I
ng themselves to forward said crop when
to Daniels agent at New Orleans.
~ him to be held subject to Mortimer's or.
as to price and time of sale until the
of January following. If not sold O
lpon said first OF January, then to be sold ="
1t Daniels discretion; the proceeds to be c
applied to the reimbursement of his adj Il
'ances, and the surplus, if any, paid over e