New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-09-15
@e,r Orleans &epuhlieat'.
OFFICIAL JOURNAL Of THE UNITED STATES
OFFICIAL JOURNAL Of NEW ORLEANS
THE COURTS.
Third District COurt-Two Thousand and
Sfxty.Ei&ht Suits Against the City-A
Mild Objection to that Very LARGE

upon the relation of the city of New Or
leans, municipal corporation created by
law and dcmiciliated in the parish of Or
leans, respectfully represents: That William
J. Grady. residing in said city, after having
declared upon claim against said city fol
the sum OF Sa06S. in the honorable the
Eighth District Court. and sought to compel
the said city. by mandamus, to pay said
alleged Indebtedness. is now seeking to
obtain S206S before the Sixth Justice OF the
Peace for the parish: and for this purpose
IN order to cvade the law and to give
jurisdiction TO the said Justice Of the Peace
III violation of the constitution. the said
Grady has instituted a06S suits, each for one
dollar, before said Justice. to the great
annoyance and TO the ;rreparable injury OF
your petitioner: said suits are all entitled
Henry c. Michel William j. Grady. trans
fierce, VS.. city Of New Orleans. and are
numbered from 5l77 Ia 5lS6: 5lSS to 5l97:
5l99 to ja0S: 52io 10 5:.S5 J2!53 to 560:.:: 500,
to GAIA: 64l5 IT, !2Sl inclusive. on the docket
of said Sixth Justice of tue Peace
That your petitioner has the constitution.
al right to have the Supreme Cour, TO pass
upon and adjudicate her defense in the last
resort. and also the constitutional right to
have her defense passed upon by district
court IN the iirst IL stance. and ough. not be
required to try said 206S cases O. one dollar
each before the said Justice.
That the district courts are the only courts
which have Jurisdiction in the premises. but
the said Sixth Justice Of the Peace. Charles
a. Meyers, has allowed the said DOGS suits to
he filed tatthtugh 20 deposits have been
made tor costs. and is about to proceed TO
the trial OF said causes. Notwithstanding his
want vi Jurisdiction, and to treat the said
claim OF s..otS as unappealabe by reason
OF its distribution into a06S different suits,
and thus cut your petitioner Oft from remedy
ms II.
Peace, and William j. Grady be prohibited,
enjoined and restrained from proceeding
further therein.
That at the proper time and place your
petitioner urged his exception in said court
to the illegal proceedings and gross usurpa-
ton Of jurisdiction. and that he has taken
all due and legal remedies without avail.
That said Grady and Meyers if allowed
to proceed further in this multiplicity of
suits which the law a5hors. will create costs
to very large amount far exceeding the
original claim OF $2G6S, and will thus. if
your petitioner should be condemned to
pay them, work great and irleparable
wrong, and that such practices are to the
scandal Ofjustice. and ought not to be per-
mitted BY this honorable court.
That the proceedings OF the said Grady
and the said Meyers are unwarrantable, I'M
just and oppressive: that your petitioner
has good and complete defense to the
claim OF S206S, of which he can not avail
himself effectively in said Justices court.
Wherefore the laws exempting the city
OF New Orleans from giving bond and
making affidavit being considered, petit
toner prays that this court will order a
writ Of prohibition 10 issue herein to said
Sixth just of the Peace and William A.
Grady. That it will further order the is
suance OF writ OF certiorari ordering the
said justice to produce before this court the
several records from No. 81, to 5is6. 5lSS
to 5l97, 5l99 TO Sos. 52l6 to 5225 5253 to
1902, 5503 to 6il4 Gli5 to 1881 on the docket
of his said court: that he do show cause if
any he have. on tie eighteenth day Of Sep
TENDER, 1871 al ten O'clock A. NJ. why he
should not Gesist il. Ills unjust and illegal
UsurpatlOn o: power.
Petitioner prays for cost and general re-
lief.
Order: Let a writ of prohibition issue
herein as prayed for. according to law. and
let also a writ of certiorari ISSUE ordering
Charles A: Meyers, Esq, Sixth Justice OF
the Peace for the parish OF Orleans, to pro-
duce before this honorable court on the
trial of this case, the several records from
No 5l77 to 5iS6. 5lSS to 5I9.. 5l99 to 1908. |
52l6 to 52225 $3.50 to 5G0I. sob to GAIA. GALS |
to 1881, on the docket Of TIE said Sixth Jus
tice Court, and let the said Meyers show
cause. on Monday. the eighteenth DAY of
oCPoCuDcI. Acf 1. Ut zen u CLOCK "A. NJ. WnV |
he should not desist in his unjust and illegal |
usurpation Of power.
Eighth District Courf-The Matter of |
Jurisdiction in City Tax suits.
In this court Judge Cooley, acting in the
absence of Judge Dibbie, delivered an oral
opinion in the case Of Daniel Bye,iy. clerk |
of the Third District Court. vs.. John S.
Walton, Administrator of Finance. in which
relator asks for the writ OF mandamus to
compel the Administrator to bring all suits
for city taxes under one hundred dollars in
that court.
The following is an abstract of Judge
COOley's decisions:
The first question to pass upon is. whether
Lynne and Fernald. clerks OF the Eighth
and Fourth District Courts. have right TO
intervene. It's claimed by the relator that
this is summary process, and no interven.
ton can be made. In the case of Bienyenu
vs.. ROdnOwski, decided by the Supreme
Court. it was held that in a summary pro-
ceeding no Intervention could be allowed
This seems to me both sense and logic. as
under different ruling the right of the in
tervenor would chan ge its character to that
of ria Ordinaia
The objection 10 the right Of Intervention
must be sustained
AS between the reiatOr and Walton, the
defendant has not appeared in court EXCEPT
oy means OF written answer, having made
neither any arguHlen: or elaboration of
points concerning the question by which l
might be enlightened. l think the Admin
!strator is clearly wronS--if | he wrong it
Is MS fault in not having appeared to eluci-
date the matter.
ne CLAIMS to be acting in the premises by
and under the order of the Common Conn
en-. think he has misinterpreted that sec
ton OF the city charter which refers to his
duties in this particular case
In II ne Is as independent of the Common
Council as they are Of him. These tax suits
can be and ought TO be brought by him.
and him alone, as the section Of the CITY
charter referring to the question places them
exclusively under his control.
If the Common Council have made a &C.
lection he has no interest, and. therefore
can not urge such selection as an objection
to relatOr.
Under the act Of 1869 there could NOT he
concurrent jurisdiction. as. for example. He
Third District Court under that act. had
the jurisdiction.
: That act simply implies the selection of a
court by competent authority. Just as any
client would designate to his attorney the
tribunal before which he desired his suit
placed. Because the plaintiff happens to
20 into other courts than the one selected. |
t does not take away the jurisdiction of the
court selected.
1t was the wish Of the Legislature that
The Third District Court should be the one
FOR the bringing of these suits, without any
reference whatever to other courts.
1t is, therefore. ordered that the interven-
lion Of Lynne and Fernald be dismissed
md the mandamus on John S. Walton. Ad- |
Illustrator of Finance, be made peremp-