New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-06-13
THE COURTS.

Metropolitan Warrants-His Opinion
of Juries in Civil Cases-The Verdict
of the Jury Set Aside-The Contested
Recordership of the Fourth District
New Trial in the Chattanooga Railroad
Bond Controversy Refused.
In the case of Esnard VS.. the city, IN
which same $4,000 in Metropolitan Police
warrants are involved, the jury last week
returned verdict to the effect that the
plaintiffs are bona fde holders of the war
rants in question, that the warrants are
genuine and to, be recognized as lawful
obligations, and should be paid" The YER
diet was taken under advisenent by Judge
Dibble, who, yesterday, delivered the FOL
lowing opinion on the same:
The plaintiffs, who are holders of large
amount of Metropolitan Police warrants,
brought this action to compel the city OF
New Orleans to make provision for their
payment. AS means to that end witt of
Injunction was prayed for, and the court
was asked to restrain the Council of New
Orleans from passing any ordinance or
resolution until they shall have provided
means for the payment of these warrants.
The petitioners urged that the relief should
be granted, by reason of the provisions of
section five of act No GA, special session of
1870. This statute made it the duty of the
councils of the municipalities, and the police
juries of the parishes within the Metropoli-
tan Police District to provide means for the
payment of the proportion of the expenses
due from each municipality and parish for
the Metropolitan Police. The fifth section
aforesaid declares that all ordinances and
resolutions passed by said councils and pO-
lice iuries shall be null and void until such
provision shall have been made.
In the case of Lafon vs. Administrator
Walton, / examined the history of those
warrants issued by the Board of Commits
o. Of tom "a N
was brought to compel the city officers to
receive certain of such warrants for taxes
due the city. l had occasion to construe
section twenty-seven of the act No. "A OF
1868, under which the issue was made, and
the acts No Al of 1869 and No. Al of 1870,
requiring the city to receive the warrants
for taxes. l found from that examination
that the city of New Or.e ms was obliged to
receive the warrants rendered in payment
for taxes, and Judgment was rendered
accordingly.
The dispute in that case as in this, was
in relation to the obligation of the city to
receive the warrants issued during the first
fiscal year of the Metropolitan Police, end
ing September 80, 1869. | found from the
several statutes aforesaid-and so ex-
pressed in the decision-that the city was
obliged to retire such warrants by receiv-
ing them for taxes, to the amount of the
quota of the expenses of the police for that
year due from the city.
In the answer of the city of New Orleans
to the present suit, several defenses are set
up. The plaintiffs ownership of the war
rants is denied, the genuineness of the in
strument disputed, and it is alleged that
the city is not obliged TO pay them or pro-
vide for their payment. 1t was especially
urged, and particularly insisted upon dur.
ing the trial, that the city has already paid
the amount of. the assessments for the
wears 1868 and 1869.
A jury trial was prayed for, and trial
by jury was had. Two days were occu-
pied in taking the testimony. In charging
the jury, at the request of counsel for the
plaintiffs, the decision given in the Laftn
case was read as the opinion of the court as
to the law of the case. "
The jury, after some delay, and after re-
turning for instructions as to the form of a
general or special verdict, found the fol-
lowing: ''We, the jury, find the facts in
the case-frst, that the plaintiffs in the
case are bona fide holders of the warrants
that were produced in court; second from
evidence of witnesses and the stub book we
have come to the conclusion that they are
genuine, and to be recognized as lawful OBJ
legations and should be paid"
This verdict, though appearing to be gen.
eral is and was brought in as a special YER
dict upon the facts. 1t is, therefore, left to
the court TO give judgment upon these facts
and the law applicable TO them. c. p, arti-
Gle 5I9. The case was thereHpon taken
under advisement c. p, $40.
When the verdict is special en- the facts
of the cause. those facts which the jury have
found are considered as true, and the judge
must render the judgmt n accordingly. c.
r., 52l. In making up his Judgment the
judge, / take it, has nothing to do but apply
the law. He has no power to review the
finding of the jury, or to determine other
facts which they may have neglected to
find. Therefore, if the facts found are not
sufficient to authorize Judgment for the
plaintiff, there must be judgment for de-
PENDANT. This judgment against the plain
tiff mag be non-suit. 7 NJ, $780,
After considering the pleadlngs and the
several statutes which must be construed,
i am satisfied that the jury have failed to
find the fact which is material to a judg-
ment for the plaintiffs Has the city of New
Orleans actually paid the amount assessed 4
against it to sustain the Metropolitan Police 4
during the year which ended September 80,
1862 the jury have not determined | have
no power to do so. i
Under the Jurisdiction of our State the
trial by jury in civil case is nondescript
affair. The system of jury trials is from
the common law, but except in our criminal
jurisprudence we have only preserved the
name and certain forms. At the common
law it is said that no man shall be deprived
of his life or property except by judgment
of his peers; the petit jury was made t.
symbolic the country.
The idea that the officers of the law could
not pronounce Judgment upon the issues of
fact essential to a final judgment found ex-
preston in the seventh amendment OF the
constitution of the United States: "And no
fact, tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-
examined in any court of the United States |
than according to the rules of the common |
law" The verdict of the jury finally deter |
mines the facts. In Louisiana it is not so. |
We say to the jury in general way: Gen !
tlemen, you are the judges of the law and |
the facts" while in truth they are left to |
determine neither. The superior court re- |
views the facts and the law, and frequently |
sets aside the verdict of the jury because |
both the law and the facts have been mis-
apprehended or perverted.
mention this only TO show that although |
the judgment now to be entered will be one |
of non-suit, the ultimate decision of the
cause may be final determination of the |
issue.
1t is therefore ordered, adjudged and de- |
creed that there be judgment against plain
titfs as in case of nonsuit that the case be
dismissed, and that the plaintiffs pay costs. |
Judge Dibble has refused motion for
new trial in the case of c. H. Sloconb ct al |
VS.. Graham, Auditor, ct al. The reasons |
assigned are the same as those expressed in |
the recent opinion delivered by the court on /
the first trial of the cause. |
William Weber VS.. f. A. Billings
This suit in which a rule nisi had issued |
on the application of Recorder Weber on |
A. E. Billings. to show cause why he should |
not be enjoined from interfering with him |
in the discarge of his duties as the Recorder |
of the Fourth District, has been discOn- |