New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-01-24
THE COURTS.


reading Of opinions and trials of rules, out
of respect to the memory of the late
Frederick Buisson, who departed this life
ycSt< rday, and whose obseuuies will take
place to-day.
The deceased. who died at the ripe age Of
seventy-tive years, was one of the most re-
spected members of the New Orleans bar. of
whom it may be safely said, that he died
without an enemy in this euvious, selfish
world of ours.
Mr.. BuissOn was veteran of the old
French army, and assisted at the battle of
Moirail. He was also Il veteran of the was
of l3li-l5.
The deceased was remarkable for his
amiable disposition and his agreeable and
ready wit.
HIS death will be sad blow TO large
circle Of friends, and his virtues Will long be
cherished and remembered. Tue deceased.
though feeble toward the end, continued
the practice of his profession up TO the time
of his late illness.
His brother. General Buisson. who still
lives among us, was pupil of the POlytech-
mic school, and is one OF the most scientific
en- ngineers and astronomers III the southern
States. Both the brothers were born in
France. but came to Louisiana at an early
aye.
Eighth Distric. Court.
The only business before this court yes
tevday before its adjournment. wa, the casc
of Frank Caro-, who was up before Judge
Dibblc upon a writ of habeas corpus Caro-
is in prison by virtue of the provisions OF
the vagrant act of the last Legislature.
Judge Dibbie Will render an opinion this
morning in this sase.
Judge Dibbie. at the opcnins OF his court
this morning. rendered the following
opinion
Michael Lazard ~. Mayo: Of New Or
leans and Mrs. Elizabeth Ferrari.-The
plaintiff owns il house on Orleans street. ad-
Joining vacant lot. the property of the de
tendant, Ferrari. In September 1859. de-
fendant complained to the municipal au-
thor1ies that the wall of plaintiff house. ad-
Joining her place. was III rulnous condition.
The deputy surve yor of the city made an
examination and certified that the wall
oyer!iunS the lot OF said defendant at least
six inches, and was dangerous.
Upon this she addressed a letter to plain
tiff. saving she wished to build upon her
property. and called the attention 20 the
fact that the wall in question laid over on
her property. She gave notice to plaintiff
that If he did not commence the rcc"nstruc-
ton of said wall within ten days. she would
have il done at his expense. and hold him
liable for all damages that might accrue
from such delay.
No attention seems 70 have been paid to
this demand, and in the following month
the defendant applied 70 the Mayor, who
caused IA notice to bc served upon the plain
til. stating that the Surveyor had reported
the wall i'll question to be III Il rliinor1s con
dition, and plaintiff was ordered TO cause
the danger to cease within ten days, and
was notified that if he failed 20 do so. the
building would be reconstructed or demol-
iShed at his expense.
Bv an ordinance relative 70 dangerous
l,rI. bat knr..
plants We're made. the Mayor should in
struct the City Surveyor to make examina-
ton. but the owner of said property was
gwen the right to contest the decision OF
the Surveyor. and appOIn. an expert. who
should be sworn by The Mayor. After said
examination by the Surveyor, plaintiff APP
pointed Thomas Michon. who reported that
the wall was no. in dangerous condition.
and that there was no danger OF its falling:
furthermore. that the erection of another
building against it would strengthen it.
Upon this report being made. Il seems that
the Mayor took no action IN the matter. bu:
shortly after defendant served notice upon
plaintiff that ne must reconstruct the wall.
or It would be done by her a. his expense.
L. having been shown By thc evidence Of
five experienced builders that the wall Is
not in IA dangerous condition the injunction
as prayed for by the plaintiff Is granted,
and the defendant EN- olned from recon
structing or dcmoliShing said wall. but II
havin. been shown that the wall does bul.e
severa! inches upon the property of the d.
tendant, Ferrari. she must seek redress
from the law provided in such eases.
Watcrworks va. City and Bondholders.-A
case is now pending in this court i'll which
the holders OF the bonds issued by the city
in payment Of the Waterworks seek to set
aside an order of the court eras!nw the ven
doris privilege in their favor.
1t is alleged that these bondhoidert wer.
never made parties to this proceeding. and
only accidentally discovered it after the
thing had been done, but not before the ex
liratiOn of the ten days allowed tOr - s,S-
pcnsive appeal.
The bondhoiGers, therefore. came in and
asked that tho whole proceedin. be set aside
and annulled, az in fraud OF their rights.
and that the vendors privilege be reinstated.
The Judge ordered the case to be opened.
the exact purport and meaning of which
order appears to be the present subject of
the controversy.
Sixth District Court-Sui: Against the Ship
Island Canal Company.
John A. Walsh, suhrogated to the lights
Of II. CIlmmins, has entered suit in this
court against the above named company. for
the recovery Of $35,OGO. alleged TO be due
him in considcrat ton of SONS six written
obligations issued by the officers of said
company, in November, 1860.
The company when issuing the notes in
question resumed the right to discharge the
same within sixty days after date with
bonds indorsed by the late City of Jeffer-
son. These bonds are the same as are now
before the City Administrators of New Or
leans for Endorsement.
Second District COurt-An Opinion in the
Celebrated Gaines Case.
y,,<;r all e,@ +ho VII ,c
Judge Duvigneaud, who had recused him
self. yesterday delivered lengthy decision
in the suit Of Joseph Fuentes ct al. vs. Mrs.
Myra Clark Gaines. The decision was upon