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

lature of 1871. In this case Judge Leau
mont delivered an opinion Judge Dibbl
recused) in which he took the ground tina
the act of the Legislature referred to is un
constitutional, and dismissed the applica
ton. Judge Leaumonts opinion appeared
in our columns. The Supreme Court hal
confirmed the Judgment. Howell, b
From the decision we quote: "The con
stitution of 1868 provides for but one mode
of taxation for the support ofpublic schools
that is, the poll tax 1t is evident that the
Legislature has not the power to set aside
that mode of taxation, and employ other
means, unless it can disregard that expires
sion of sovereign will, article 1873, which
reads, that the Legislature shall provide
tor the support of the public schools by tax
alton or otherwise, and Omits the words 'on
| property taxation defined and made oblig
atory upon the Legislature by act llS. The
| Judgment goes on to say, the evidence
does not satisfy him that there has been any
official refusal on the part OF the Council to
| levy the tax"
9 Section forty 1.-TWO of revenue act is I'M
constitutional, for the reason that the title
does not mention the limitation of the
tax, the Supreme Court having held
that the title of an act must refer to all
the subject matter contained in the act
itself.
Wherefore the court concludes that sec
ton seven of the act of March |, levying a
tax on the taxable property of the city of
New Orleans, for the support of the public
schools, is unconstitutional void and of no
effect. as employing a different mode of
taxation from the one ordered and made
obligatory by the constitution of 1868; that
the only taxation that could be imposed by
the Legislature for the support of public
schools is the poll tax. and that not to eX-
coed one dollar and fifty cents per capita !;
that there is no | W making it the duty OF
the city of New Orleans to collect said poll
tax, but that, en- the contrary, it is made
the duty of the State tax collectors.
Victor Warden VS.. Alfred Shaw ct al
Appeal from the Fourth District Court for
the parish of Orleans. Judgment reversed.
Taliaferro, j.
Joseph Christian vs. Nicholas Keiffer-
Appeal from the Fourth District Court for
the parish of Orleans. Judgment reversed,
and decreed in favor of the defendant.
WHY, j.
Theirman & Co. VS.. Redman & Ce.-Ap-
peal from the Third District Court for the
parish of Orleans. Judgment affirmed.
TaliaterrO, j.
f. G. Cook vs. A. Miltenberger & Co.
Appeal from the Fourth District Court for
the parish of Orleans. Judgment reversed,
and decreed to be in favor of plaintiffs.
Howell, J. ...- ... .s
Succession of II. +. McKenna-Appeal
from the Second District Court for the par
ish of Orleans. Motion to dismiss refused,
and upon the trial of the case the Judg-
ment of the lower court was affirmed.
Howell, j.
City of Baltimore VS.. Henry Parlange,
George Merz third opponent-Appealf from
the Fifth District Court for the parish OF
Orleans. Judgment reversed. Howe, J.
C. T. Buddecke & Co., agents, VS.. II. A.
Spence, Charles E. Slayback, intervenors-
Appeal from the Fifth District Court for
the parish of Orleans. The plaintiffs, as
agents of the Fourth National Bank of st.
Louis, Missouri, commenced this action
against the defendant Spence, a resident of
Missouri, and attached shipment of grain
consigned to G.. E. Slayback & Co., of New
Orleans. Slayback & Co. interviewed, claim
ing that the grain had been consigned by
Spence to them, as commission merchants,
for sale; that the bills of lading in
which they were named as con-
received by them, long prior to the arrival
and attachment of the goods; that Spence
was indebted on balance of account to them
as his commission agents in large sum for
advances made on previous shipments, and
that they had a special property in the
goods, and IA claim or privilege on them,
superior to that of plaintiffs, as attaching
creditors The decision of the lower court
was in favor of the claims of the inter
venOrs, on the point of privilege, and plain
tiffs have appealed. Judgment affirmed.
Howe, j.
Rehearings have been refused in the fol-
lowing cases:
Geddes, Shakespeare & Co. VS.. Ivens g. |
Co.
James VS.. Pike, Lapeyre & Brother.
johnson vs. Tacneau.
Knight VS. Pontchartrain railroad
Pendleton VS.. Eaton & Barstow
Beckham VS. Henderson.
Succession of Kugler,
State ex rel. Board of School Directors VS.
he Mayor and Administrators of the city of |
New Orleans-This is an appeal from the
Eighth District Court Judge Howell de-
lvered the following opinion yesterday
the decision of the lower court,
which, as will be recollected, was in favor
If the city:
The REALTORS have appealed from a judg-
nent refusing writ of mandamus to com
,el the Mayor and Administrators of the
ity of New Orleans to levy and collect
AK sufficient to realize the sum of three
hundred and fifty thousand dollars, fixed
" the said REALTORS, for the purpose of
the free public schools in the
ity of New Orleans during the current
ear, in accordance with the provisions and
equirements of act No. of the Legisla-
ure of 1871 entitled "an act to amend an
ct entitled an act relative to public educa-
ion in the State of Louisiana and the city
New Orleans, and to raise revenue for
hat purpose" approved February 25, 1871
he seventh section of which is in the fol-
owing words: :
The Board of School Directors for the
ity of New Orleans shall Immediately
pom their organization, and also at the |
of each year thereafter,
scertain the amount of funds necessary to
AIRY on the schools under their charge
OF the current year, and report the same
D the Board OF Administrators of the city
t New Orleans, who shall, at such time as
hey may deem necessary, levy the amount
n the taxable property of the city and
irect the same to be collected in the man.
er and at the time by them deemed most
but the time shall not exceed six
onths from the date of their notification
the amount required"
Among other reasons to justify their re- :
lsal, the respondents aver that section :
wen of the act No. AZ of the Legislature of !
II, entitled "an act to provide revenue ,
levy and collect taxes to grant and col ,
ct licenses" etc, approved March 3, 1871,
'Ohibits the city of New Orleans, the =
spendents, from levying any tax upon the /
'Operty situated in the said city, listed for :
xation, to greater amount than two per
ntum of the cash value thereof, and that
ere have already been levied upon said a
Operty taxes to the amount of two and II
-e-eighths per centum of the value thereof, U
ID the taxpayers are protected by said !
W from the payment of any other or S
rther sum, unless by vote of the citizens 2
titled to vote in said city, and no such ;
tie has been had on this question. I
Section seven, relied on, reads as follows: :
hat no city, or municipal corporation, q q
all levy tax for any purpose which i