New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-31
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.

following cases.
Edwin G. Cook VS.. Miltenberger.
Renters VS.. Valentine ST. Ceran.
Succession of l.. MillaudOn.
Robert ii. Dixey VS.. Irwin.
Wells vs. Merz and the Sheriff.
Rehearings granted:
Wicklitfe VS.. Yeatman.
Maher VS.. Reimau g. Friedlander.
Watson, McGill Il Co. VS.. A. Glenn & Co,
Amsinche & Co, intervenors and third
opponents.-In This case the rule to rein
state the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
The court then adjourned until to-day at
Bpm.
Eighth District Court-The Removal of
Distinctions in Bayou Bartholomew
The State Intervenes.
In the case OF the STATE of Louisiana eX
rel. Livingston g. Guthrie VS.. James Ora
BAN, Auditor of Public Accounts, the At
torney General has filed petition of inter
yention, based on the following averments:
l. That the relief sought for by the relat-
ors, if ordered to be enforced By this court,
must be acquitted out of the funds of inter
venor.
2. That the State has right to intervene
herein and assert the grounds why It's
money should not be misapprOprlated, and
il hereby unites with the Auditor of Public
Accounts in his defense to this action, and
herein adopts, reiterates and makes part
hereof all the allegations and averments
contained in the exception and answer OF
said Auditor: and intervenor further sets
forth for cause why the prayer of relator
should be denied:
l. That the said act never became a law,
and was illegally promulgated by the Secre-
tary of State; that five days had not elapsed
after SAID bill had been presented to the
Governor, prior to the adjournment of the
General Assembly, and same is not signed
by the Governor.
=. That under and by the provisions of act
No. SO, approved March >, 1870, it is Set forth
that the sum of $4,000, or so much thereof
as may be necessary, should be appropriated
for the removal Of distractions in Bayou
Bartholomew. 1t was further provided, by
section second, that in order to secure the
completion of the above named work during
the ensuing season of low water, the Board
of Public Works are hereby authorized and
directed to have said stream examined at
once by an engineer of the board and by
section third it is provided that the board
shall advertise for proposals to perform
this work, and shall award the contracts for
the same to the lowest bidder, who may of
fer the best securities to complete the work
prior to the first of January, 1871; provided
that said bids do not exceed the estimates
naned:" and by section fourth of said act
it is provided, that bond shall be given by
the contractor, with good security, condi-
toned that the work shall be performed
according to the plans and specifications of
the engineers, and within the time specified.
Now intervenor AYERS that the provisions
of the Law aforesaid have not been com
piled with either by the Board Of Public
Works or by REALTORS herein: that no adj
vertisements for proposals to perform said
work were made, nor was there any adjudi-
cation thereof to REALTORS as the lowest bid
der, nor was any bond or security given by
REALTORS, nor valid contract made to com
plete said work prior to the first of Jan
uary, 1871.
g. Intervenor charges that the contract
set III by REALTORS between themselves and
the Board of Public Works on the tenth Of
December 1870, is null and void, and no
law authorized the said board to enter into
said contract in manner and form set forth
by REALTORS.
A. Intervenor specially AYERS that the
warrants of the Board of Public Works in
favor of REALTORS were issued in fraud of
law, with intent and purpose of defrauding
intervenor, the State of Louisiana.
5. Intervenor AYERS, in event the court
should hold the contract to be valid i'll point
of law and fact. that act No. 45, of lS7 |, is
legally promulgated, and if law, which is
denied, makes provision indirectly for con-
tracing a debt exceeding in amount the
sum of 100000, without providing therein
adequate ways and means for the payment
of the same, in violation of article one hun
bred and eleven of the State constitution
of 1868. and the same is in consequence null
and void.
g. That said act is in violation of article
one hundred and four of the State consttu-
ton of 1868, inasmuch as no specific appro-
priation is made; therefore no money can
be drawn from the treasury in pursuance of
said law.
Z. That the Legislature of Louisiana is
without power TO delegate to any individual
or company authority to bind the State in
any sum of money dependent on the will,
Judgment or discretion of said individual or
company.
s. Intervenor specially denies that act
No. So, of 1870 and act No. As, of 1871 were
passed by the General Assembly in pursu-
ance Of article No. 66 of the constitution of
the State of Louisiana.
Intervenor asks that the petition of re-
iators be dismissed, and the application for
a writ of mandamus be denied, with COSTS
Seventh District Court-Decision by Judge
Collens.
The Consolidated Association of the Plan
tiers of Louisiana and others VS.. Mrs. NAL
vipa Beverages and Francis i. Fleitas.-Pe-
titioners claim to be the creditors of certain
parties in the sum of $37 $40 81 represent
ing: That petitioners, with other creditors,
went before Amedee Ducatel, notary pub
lie, and there unanimously joined in "A com
mon act passed December IA, 1867. by which
it was agreed that time should be granted
to their debtors for the liquidation Of their
respective claims, under certain stipulations
contained in said act; and, further, that in
the event of the violation of such stipula-
TONS the said creditors should have the
right to proceed to the collection of their
respective claims, and cause to be seized
and sold the properties by them mortgaged
and Hypothetical in and by the said com
mon act. In the course of time the said
debtors. in consequence of a variety of I'M
fortunate consequences, have failed to com
ply with the stipulatlCns agreed to in said
act; and, therefore, one of the creditors,
Mrs Malvina Beverages, a creditor by mort
gage, in the year 1870 foreclosed her mort
gage, and caused certain of the property to be
seized and sold for cash under a judgment
of the district court, in violation of the com
mon act aforesaid, requiring under her own
signature and assent the properties so mort
gagged to he sold in the manner stipulated
in said act, viz: One-fourth for cash. and
the balance on one, two and three years
credit; that after the said Malvina De-
verges thus obtained her writ of seizure and
sale, away from all participation on the
part of the other creditors, she proceeded
with eXecutoly proct SIS, without notice to
the petitioner, and without hindrance from
the debtors although they had been served
with the usual legal notice, and, as far as
the plaintiffs are informed, without the
usual advertisements required in such cases,
in the parish of st. Bernard: that the sale
made in August, 1870, under the said execu-
tory process and by means OF the DECEPTION
thus practiced upon all parties to the COM
mon act, and under the suticrance of the