New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-13

Judge Dibble was too much lndlsposed
yesterday to try cases
During the short time he occupied the
bench he delivered the following oral opin-
dons:
Injunction Against the City Railroad
Company.
In the case of j. NJ. H0yle VS.. the New
Orleans City Railroad Company, in which
an Injunction was obtained upon suit before
the Sixth District Court to restrain the COM
pany from changing their track on Canal
street from the urestle work over the canal
to the shell road, and which case was, when
it reached the Supreme Court, sent back,
because the order had been made subsequent
to the creation Of the Eighth District Court,
where the case properly belonged, Judge
Dibble said that, without committing him
self to the principle enunciated by the
Judge OF the Sixth District Court in his
opinion, he would follow his Judgment and
allow the case to 20 back to the Supreme
Court upon that for final arbitrament
The Judges order is reiteration of Judge
Cooley's Judgment, in which the company
are restrained from the contemplated re.
moval of their track until the disposition of
the case at bar.
Blaze Metropolitan Warrants.
In the case of Esnard ct al vs. the city of
New Orleans, Judge Dibble yesterday
passed upon the exceptions raised by the
city day before yesterday, that the several
parties in interest could not join in the one
petition.
The court ruled that it seemed clear that
where persons had similar interests they
may join together in one suit. Exception
overruled and the case fixed to come up on
its merits.
The Shit Upon Judges Warrants.
In the suit OF j. Newman VS.. the State
Treasurer, in which new trial was or
dered ex otficio by the court, Judge DID
BILE said that when the payment was rem
'dered he had taken the view that the act
making the appropriation of $3.50, 600 and
giving preference to the warrants was i'll
the nature of law impairing the nature
of a contract, and therefore void. He had
since ascertained that there is clause in
the appropriation bill providing for the
payment OF other warrants for salaries;
therefore the mandamus could be made per-
.emptOry without passing upon the constitu-
tional question involved. 1t is a settled
rule that the courts should never pass upon
the constitutionality of an act if the suit
can be decided without doing so. Man
.damus was therefore made peremptory.
Suit About slaughterhOuse Stock.
Robert Bloomer has instituted suit in
the Eighth District Court to recover
5000 from Franklin J. Pratt, S. p. Griffin,
j. Viosca, Jr., X. L. Packwood, Andrew j.
Oliver and j. III. Crippin in solido.
He represents that on or about the
eleventh of March, 1869, he purchased from
said defendants seven hundred and fourteen
and two-sevenths shares of the capital
stock of the Crescent City Live Stock Land
ing and Slaughterhouse Company.
That said stock thus sold and conveyed
to petitioner was to have been fully paid up
capital stock, and was to be delivered to
petitioner free and exempt from any and
all assessments OF any and every kind
whatsoever.
That petitioner has received from defend
ants 2l4 shares of the said stock, but that
there remains still undelivered and owing
to petitioner the amount or number of about
500 shares of said capital stock. He alleges
amicable demand for said stock of defend
ants who promise but neglect to deliver the
game.
That they have thus become indebted to
petitioner for said stock at the rate of fifty
dollars per share, as the stock is or has been
worth that amount, making in the aggregate
$4,000.
Wherefore he prays that they be cited, etc.
Sixth District Court - Important suit
Against the City.
Q. A. Thomas has brought suit in the
Sixth District Court, Judge Cooley, TO re-
cover 1908 % from the city of New Or
leans. He set up that on the twenty ninth
of June, 1870, he was awarded contract
for furnishing 900 barrels of shells, at
forty-eight cents per barrel, amounting to
$4,000, payable i'll cash on the delivery of
each 10000 barrels as per specification.
After the first delivery of 10000 barrels
he demanded the cash. but was refused,
and also after the second and third INSTALL
ments of shells he was obliged to receive
for the same certificates of the city or
nothing, and that these certificates were
worth in the market only seventy-fye cents
on the dollar.
That although ready to comply with his
part of the contract, he was obliged to sus-
pend operations in consequence OF the ac-
ton of the city, and that he placed the
civ III default on the third of November,
IL.
That because of this neglect OF the city to
meet her payments, he suffered loss on
said certificates of $3.50 Al. Also, that lie
suffered loss of Sl4 1913 "a, being the profit
he would have made on the balance of said
contract, viz: on ll9,l57 barrels of shells,
for which the city is liable.
That, in order to carry out his contract
properly. he was obliged to purchase appur-
tenances, etc., which have been rendered
yalueless by the failure of the city to fulfill
its contract, causing him loss of S4l20.
That he brought to the city 7C0) barrels
of shells over and above the amount OF the
three nstallments, and he was obliged to
dispose of the same at private sale, whereby
he lost Sll20, making his entire losses $685.
093 2S, for which he seeks Judgment,
SHIT Against the City by an Insurance
Company.
The Life Association of America, incor-
porated in Missouri, and doing business in
New Orleans, has entered suit against the
city to recover the sum of $2055, amount
paid as license on its business for the years
1869, 1870 and 1871.
The company sets up that there were no
ordinances imposing said taxes for 1869 and
1870, and that the ordinances under which
they were collected had no application to
life insurance companies not Incorporated
by the State. and therefore were collected
without the authority OF law.
That if it should be held that the said
ordinances did apply to the said association
then they aver that these ordinances, as
well as the ordinance adopted imposing the
taxesfon said association for the years 1869,
1870 and 1871, violate the constitutions of
the State and the United States, and are
unconstitutional, contrary to law, illegal,
unequal and unjust, null and void.
A good story is told of a business meet
ing among certain Quakers about pro-
posed canal, when one of the most infiuen-
ial mo. mt 4l,., I,