New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-10-05

Fuentes against Myra Clark Gaines wa
continued for further argument, owing t.
the indiapOsitiOn of counsel.
The suit under the intrusion act, based OF
the relation OF George E. BOvee, the sus
| pended Secretary Of State, against Franci,
j. Heron, the present incumbent, was YES
terday submitted for decision to the Eight
District Court. The Attorney General hav
ing waived the opening argument in the
case, Messrs. Grant and Semmes argued fol-
the respondent, and were followed by the
Attorney General, who closed on behalf Of
the State and the relator. A great deal Of
testimony was had during the progress of
the trial. The malversatiOn OF the Secretary
Of State in Office was as much as admitted
in the evidence, and the Attorney General
based his argument mainly upon the opinion
that the constitution did not authorize the
Governor to act as he had done. On behalf
Of the respondent, the Interpretation given
to the clause of the constitution recurring
the Governor to see that the laws
he faithfully executed" was involved
in the dispute. In the testimony
Of Mr.. Bovee himself, he admitted that he
had promulgated the act creating the Cres-
cent City Waterworks Company at the sug-
gestiOn of the latter, knowing that the bill
was in possession of the executive and that
he would veto it at the next legislative ses-
sion. The former secretary also testified
that the copy of the act was prepared by
Messrs. Carter and Dunn; that the publica-
ton IN the German Gazette was made on the
twenty-sixth of August, and that he knew
Dunn's name was of the bill at this time,
Such. in the main, are the facts given, upon
which the court is to decide.
In the suit waged by the Slaughterhouse
Company against F. Frilot and other butch
ers. Judge Emerson, Of the Eighth District
Court refused the injunction applied for by
the company for the following reasons:
Plaintiffs allege the establishment and
use by defendants of a slaughterhouse on
the right bank Of the river. and aver it to
he in violation of their monopoly and char
tered right. They therefore pray for an in
junction to restrain defendants from slaugh-
tering in said establishment; to enjoin them
from erecting any similar concerns, and
from any and all violations of the privileges
accorded in their act of incorporation.
This writ will not issue to prohibit the
commission or continuance of wrongs or in
juries which are not distinctly and specific
ally alleged; consequently those portions of
the prayer which tall under this category
must be disregarded. Nor will the writ is
sue unless the petition is accompanied by
an affidavit which sets forth clearly and un-
equivocally the facts necessary to warrant
the interference Of the court.
Al tLlS case QUO VI Cuc pldluGluS m8Oo
oath that the facts. so far as they were
within his knowledge, were true, and 80 far
as they were derived from information, he
believed to be true, without specifying one
fact as being known to him personally This
is clearly insufficient. and does not warrant
issuance of an injunction. Schuber vs..
Borgereau, II L. r., la; Rice vs.. Walsh,
An. 3l6.
Let the prayer for injunction be re-
fused
The Slaughterhouse Company having ap-
piled for permission to bond the Injunction
obtained by F. Frilot, the plaintiff against |
them, Judge Emerson refused the applica- |
ton to bond for the following reasons:
The plaintiff, butcher. prayed to enjoin !
defendants from tearing down and aban-
dOning their works on the right bank of the !
river. On the trial of the rule nisi no affi- |
davit and no evidence was offered, and. |
therefore, the case stood on the sworn al |
legations of the petition, and an Injunction |
was ordered.
Defendants now ask leave to bond. !. This |
would defeat the object of plaintiffs suit,
and virtually rescind the order already |
granted. 2. 1t was cOntended IN argument I
and admitted by the defendants, that they
had already torn down and removed all |
heir works, formerly existing on the right |
bank Of the river. This fact was neither
alleged nor proved on the rule nisi. If it
we're 80 at the inception of these proceed
ngs, there was nothing to enjoin; if it be
10 now. there is nothing to bond. Let the
application to bond be refused
Upon the suit of Jean Berth and others.
III butchers on the right bank of the river,
or an injunction, Judge Emerson has
granted it, restraining the company from
the buildings from right to left,
md decides in favor Of the plaintiffs.