New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-23

: provisions of section seven, which relates
/ uneauivocally to the subject of leryipts
taxes-cities, municipal corporations and
parishes, Subdivisions of the State, being
prohibited from levyIng taxes beyond a
certain per centum
And furthermore it is well established
y. rule of legal construction that 1.-The title OF
a law is not to be strictly construed; if it
state the object according to the under
standing of reasonable men, it satisfies the
constitution" (6 An, COG; 81 An, 1927. Nor
is it necessary that the title should define or
specify the particular provisions of each sec
tiOn-a rule which would make the title as
long as the law, or would be the law less the
enacting words only. The title is sufficient.
But it is said the court will rather prefer to
harmonic the provisions of both laws, to
do which it is only necessary to apply the
limitation, not to the aggregate of taxes
which it may be necessary for the city to
assess. but to the dimension or amount of
any one single tax of the several taxes,
which it is and was known the city required,
as the consolidated loan tax, the railroad
tax, the park tax, the Metropolitan Police
tax, etc.
1t is not difficult to perceive that this con
struction would totally destroy all limita-
ton and leave the law without a rational
object, for upon this theory the city author
tiles might levy any number of specific
taxes, for particular purposes, provided
each one did not exceed two per centum of
the value of the taxable property. Such
construction is not allowable.
The law is free from ambiguity, and is
manifestly enacted in the interest of the
taxpayers, and intended to limit as it does,
| the taxing power of all municipal and
parochial authorities to the will of the vot-
ers as to any and all taxation on property
beyond two per centum of its value. If,
however, such authorities deem an addi-
tiOnal amount necessary for the public good,
| they have under this law only to submit the
! question to the legal voters of the respec-
tive localities for their decision.
Although Judges are not to be controlled
| in their actions by a consideration of the
| consequences which may flow from their
| exposition of laws. we can very properly
say that we are unable to perceive the dis
astrOus consequences which seem to be APP
pretended by counsel from the operation of
this law.
The people of New Orleans desire the
public schools in the city to be maintained
by special taxation on their property; they
will doubtless give their sanction to the
levying of the additional tax necessary for
such laudable purpose, whatever may be
the comparative Importance of the objects
for which the limits of taxation has already
been obtained.
1t is certainly not in the province of the
court to set aside the law for the purpose of
sustaining even the free public school sys-
TEN. Our conclusion rs that a writ of man
damus can not properly issue in this case to
compel the Board of Administrators to levy
and collect tax sufficient to realize the
sum called for by the REALTORS The seventh
section of the revenue act of 1871 has clearly
limited the taxing power of the municipal
government, and that power has already
been exhausted; but said section has also
provided mode for raising any necessary
tax beyond the prescribed limits, and that
mode is not the one resOrted to in this pro-
ceeding. "E r
1t is therefore ordered that the Judgment
of the district court be affirmed with costs
Sixth District Court-Judge Cooley De-
cides that the Recordership of the
First District is yacant-Important
suit Against the SlaugbterhOuse COM
pany.
Ernest Merle, committed to the Parish
Prison on an order issued by Recorder
H0ughtOn, before whom he was charged
with having distracted a certain seven
thirty certificate from the office of Admins |
traitor Shaw, at the City Hall, was brought |
before Judge Cooley yesterday morning on |
a writ of habeas corpus The petition of |
Merle sets up that inasmuch as that there |
had been Judgment rendered against Re |
corder Hought0n in the suit of J j. Foley, !
he was according to article ninety-four of |
the constitution, deprived of his office as |
Recorder.
Article ninety four reads as follows:
NO Judicial powers, except as commit
ting magistrates in criminal cases. shall be
conferred on any officers other than those
mentioned in this title, except such as NAV
be necessary in towns and cities; and the |
judicial powers Of such officers shall not
extend any further than the cognzance of
cases arising under the police regulations of
towns and cities in the State. In any case
where such officers shall assume iurisdic-
ton over other matters than shall arise
under police regulations, or under their
jurisdiction as committing magistrates
they shall be liable to an action for dam
ages IN favor of the party injured, or his
heirs; and verdict in favor of the party
injured shall, ipso tacto, operate vacation
of said office"
The answer sets up that according to
article ninety four the recorder was not de-
prived of authority, as it was judgment
OF the court and not verdict of a Jury
which Is expressly stipulated in the above
article.
Judge Cooley rendered a lengthy deci-
sion in the case, in which he took the ground
hat it was manitestly the intention of the
trainers OF the law to make no distinction
between verdict and judgment; that iudg-
ment by court could at any time set
aside the verdict OF jury, and was in all |
respects of higher authority than a verdict.
Judge Cooley expressed himself as hav-
ng very little respect for the verdict of
uries, and thought it would be an unjust
aw which bound man finally to that opin-
on. The court considered that Recorder
4oughtOn, having forfeited his office under
he provisions of article "a, was no longer
recorder, nor had he been since the iudg-
nent rendered against him, and cOnse-
Iuently was without authority to commit '
he petitioner.
The writ Ofhabeas corpus was made alb :
olute, and the prisoner was discharged
William Durbridge has entered suit I
against the SlaughterhOuse company to re- .
over the sum of Sll0, 500 OF, or its euuiva- 2
ent ia stock of the company. /
He alleges that by the terms of agreement o
It the organization of the company, it was I
greed between the incorporates that six ?
Il their number should be entitled to 1000 y
hares OF stock, and that furthermore there +
Mould be allotted among seventeen of their \
lumber 4OOO shares of stock; that of the a
ersons forming the incOporators, A. j. II
Diver constituted one, and under the terms
eferred to was entitled to an allotment of
235 shares of stock, amounting to $l23,-
% o.. =
The plaintiff represents that he purchased
Ii the right and title of Oliver to said allot-
lent of stock. for which he paid him val
able consideration: that the transfer of =
Divers rights was legally made, and in con- 81
Iteration of the same plaintiff was elected c,
member of the Board of Directors of the cl
laughterhouse company. Upon his cleo D.
on he claims that there were issued to him | RI
81 shares OF stock, leaving a balance due st
iii OF lUOo shares, amounting to Sl00,529 o.
)r winch amIcable demand has been made W