New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-08-18


Divorce-Has A. Father the Right TO
Claim Authority over Minor Child.
Judge beaumont, who has been absent
for some time at Bladon Springs, returned
to the city suddenly on a brief visit, and
opened court Yesterday to hear an applica-
ton for writ of habeas corpus made by a
father to obtain possession of minor
child, a daughter now held by her elder
sister.
man of immoral habits, and therefore is
not a suitable guardian, and that further
more he has never qualified as tutor of his
child since the death of his wife.
The question involved is whether father
can, under any circumstances, be deprived
of the custody of minor child.
Eighth District Court-The~ Slaughter
house Company Once More i'm Court
An Injunction Prayed for to Prevent
the Removal of The Company's Slaugh-
terhOuse from the Right Bank TO the
Left-BIandamus ON the State Treas.
urer.
Judge Emerson presided in this court yes
terday, Judge Dibble having gone North on
a leave of absence.
The rule for contempt taken against G.
Cavaroe ct al, in the case of Frelot VS.. the
above, has been discharged, it being shown
that the order of injunction had not been
issued by the court.
The case of Francois Frelot VS.. the Slaugh-
terhouse Company. praying for an iDjunc
ton to restrain the defendants from remOv-
ing the grand slaughterhouse from the west
to the east side of the river, occupied the at
tention of this court to-day.
The plaintiff in the case, butcher, seeks
to prevent the removal referred to, on the
ground that it will materially injure him,
and entail upon him great loss, through the
breaking up of his business. 1t will be re-
collected that in the case of Mehle & Co.
vs. the Slaughterhouse Company, seeking
for like injunction, Judge Dibble refused
to grant the writ, remarking in his decision,
that if the act chartering the company en-
joins it to establish and maintain but one
sgrand slaughterhouse and stock landing,
and if the directors should attempt to
violate the charter in that respect, an in
dividual stakeholder would, perhaps, have
the right to obtain the writ of Injunction
against the act or acts.
But in this law l find no such provision.
1t is true that the act required the erection
of grand slaughterhOuse before a certain
date, when the butcheripg was to cease
above the city. But the act nowhere says
that such slaughterhouse shall be main
tanned duging the period of the charter, and
shall be the only place at which slaughter
ing shall be done. On the contrary section
four of the law provides: THAT the said
company or corporation is hereby authorized
to erect, at lis own expense, one or more
landing places for live stock, as aforesaid,
at any points or places consistent with the
provisions of this act, and to have and en-
Joy, from the completion thereof, and after
the first day of June. 1869, the exclusive
privilege of having landed at their wharves
and landing places all animals intended for
sale or slaughter in the parishes of Orleans
and Jefferson, and is hereby authorized
lin connecticut to erect, at its own expense,
one or more slaughterhOuses, at any points
or places consistent with the provisions of
this act and fhd to have and en from the
The law is sanctioned by its penalties
from slaughtering above the points upon
the river designated as the limit, and for
slaughtering in other than the slaughter
houses of the company below the limits.
Quoting the above, counsel for plaintiff
shows that the present question, viz: Has
the company a right to tear down the build
ings which they erected under the provis-
ions of the law which crea,ed it! They
claim that the decision of Judge Dibble
settled the right of the company TO erect as
many slaughterhouses as it pleased within
the prescribed limits, but did not involve
the right to destroy any of them. Counsel
also claims as an additional reason why
they had no such right, that the grand
slaughterhouse was "a State institution, and
not subject to be destroyed except by au-
thority from the State. Inasmuch as the
buildings formerly occupied as the grand
slaughterhouse have been demolished and
carried away root and branch, the question
arises, what is to be enjoined! Arguments
in this case will be quite elaborate, no less
than three distinguished members of the
bar being arrayed on the part of Frelot
against the single representative OF the CON-
pany. The decision of Judge Emerson will
be looked for with interest
In the case of Paul Guidry VS.. A. Dubu-
clet, State Treasurer praying for man
damus to compel the payment of judicial
warrant amounting to 5000, the mandamus
has been made peremptory.
The rule for contempt in the case of
Merle vs. Graham, involving the non-com-
pliance with an order of this court com
manding the respondent to issue his war
rants in lieu of legislative warrants held by
relator, has been discharged.
In this case the Auditor refused to take
up the legislative warrants on the ground
that some of them had been fraudulently
altered by some person, before they came
into the hands of Mr.. Merle, from $4,000 to
$4,000.
United States Commissioners Court.
In the case of the United States VS.. James
Hill, alias Malvin Hill, and Dick Sheppard,
charged before United States Commissioner
William Grant with conspiring, together
with one Lewis Willis, to defraud the
United States out of freedman's bounty,
for 1888, the Assistant United States Dis
trict Attorney, Mr.. Gurley, has entered a
nolle prosequi, and the accused have been
discharged from custody.