New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-07-04
THE COURTS.
sixth District Court.

sixth District Court.
In the Evans contempt case, in answer
to the written charge made by Judge
Cooley, Justice Evans read the following
Sixth District Court for the parish of Or
leans-The State of Louisiana vs.. William
l.. Evans. Into court now comes William
l.. Evans made defendant in the above en-
titled and numbered proceeding, and tol
answer to the charge of contempt therein
made against him, respectfully shows:
That he has not intended or desired to
commit a contempt of the authority OF the
Sixth District Court for the parish OF Or
leans; that it has been his intention and
determination to uphold the authority and
dignity of the Second Justice Court Tor
the parish of Orleans, court created by
the constitution of the State of Louisiana;
that III issuing an attachment against ana
causing w. III. Cooley to appear before the
Second Justice Court, OF which respond
ent is the Justice, respondent was actuated
by no malice. but by the conviction that
though respondent is but a justice OF the
peace and the presiding ofhcer OF the court
OF Justice of the peace, he is as much
constitutional officer and entitled to at
least as much official respect as the Judge
of the SIKH District Court, and the court
over which he presides.
The Judge of the Sixth District Court is
sued an attachment against respondent ana
caused him to appear before that court for
an alleged contempt, which consisted IN the
simple exercise of judicial authority vested
in respondent. by committing to prison
well known and dangerous malefactor, ac-
cused of the crime of burglary. Respondent
believing that If it was contempt of the
Sixth District Court for him to perform his
judicial functions in the case referred to, 1t
certainly was violation of the prerOgatlves
of the Second Justice Court for the justice
thereof to be stigmatized and held to pub
lie contempt and ridicule in language most
degrading to respondent and calculated to
DESTROY the efficiency of the court presided
over by him, and which language he did
not construe as part of the reasons for iudg
ment. Hence respondent believed it to be
his imperative duty, in order TO save the
dignity and authority of the Second JUS
tice Court, to take action which is made
the foundation for the contempt now al
legged against him.
Respondent respectfully submits that
if it be true that one judicial officer
can not hold another judicial officer re-
sponsible for his acts as such, then respond
ent can not be held amenable to the par
ticular charge OF contempt brought against
him in the pending proceeding, because his
action was that of the Second Justice Court,
and if, in exercising the prerogatives of that
office he has misc0nceived the law, it is
certainly as excusable as the action of the
Judge of the Sixth District Court in having
respondent attached for contempt for an
act strictly within his judicial duty. and as
pardonable as the language of the Judge of
the Sixth District Court in his reasons for
judgment" in the case of Pete Munday.
In his whole conduct respondent has had
in view and been actuated by the belief
that though but an humble citizen, he has
been called to preside over a court created
by the same constitution that brought into
existence the Sixth District Court, and that
unless he maintains the authority and dig
nifty of the court and the justice, he will be
derelict of duty to the State, to the people
who placed him in office, and TO himself.
If in law respondent is guilty of con-
tempt of court, or the judge as such (which
respondent believes he is mott, he must
abide such consequences as may follow;
otherwise the attachment for contempt
should be duashed W. L. EVANS,
Second Justice Peace.
Judge Cooley sentenced Justice Evans
to fifty dollars fine and six hours in the
Parish Prison.
Eighth District Court.
Joe Hernandez and John Klein have
filed petitions in the Eighth District Court,
praying that mandamuses be issued to com
pei the Auditor to pay their warrants be-
fore other mandamus issued.
G. 7. Boyer has entered suit against
Ant. Dubuclet State Treasurer. praying
for a writ of injunction against said Dubu-
clet, inprohibiting and eniOining him from
paying any warrants to the prejudice of
said Bower out of the general funds of the
treasury, until he shall have first paid out
of said fund the warrant of said Boyer,
amounting to the sum of SSS,C40 %.
Judge Dibble has granted rule nisi in
this case. returnable next Thursday before
him in chambers.
The Metropolitan Warrants-Judge Dbl
BILE Declares that they can be Received
by the City for Taxes.
John Davidson ct ais VS.. the City of
New Orleans, John S Walton, Admins
traitor, and the Board of Metropolitan
Police. The court decides as follows:
The plaintiffs, who are taxpayers. pray
that upon final decree an Injunction be
awarded restraining the Administrator of
Finance Of the city of New Orleans from
receiving for taxes the warrants issued by
the Board OF Metropolitan Police, as he is
required TO do by several special statutes.
The petition attempts to set forth two
grounds of action:
First-The statutes creating the Metro
poltan Police and authorizing taxation to
sustain the same are unconstitutional and
void for that they violate article ll8 of the
constitution of the State and generally con-
trovene the fundamental principles of the
republican form of government.
SecOnd-The city of New Orleans is pro-
hibited from laying taxes in excess OF two
per cent: taxes TO the amount of one and
eighty-seven and One-half per cent are re-
quired for the payment of the interest upon
the debt, the current expenses and the
levy for the public parks therefore the city
has no authority 70 pay the assessment for
the police to an amount Ia excess OF the
proceeds OF a tax of twelve and one-half
per cent. which amount has already been
paid.
The city of New Orleans and the Adj
mipistrator OF Finance Tile a general denial.
The Board of Metropolitan Police file an
exception that the petition discloses no
cause of action, and an answer in which
they plead the general denial, and charge
that the action is not bona tide suit, but
the result of collision between the city of
New Orleans through its corporate authori-
ties and the said plaintiffs.
| listened with interest and considered
with care the able argument OF counsel Tor
plaintiffs upon the constitutional questions
urged. Nevertheless, / have no doubt
whatever of the constitutional power of the
Legislature to erect Metropolitan police
district for the purpose OF better local gov
eminent and the suppression OF crime IN
the centres of population. | see no differ
epce between such district for such pur-
pose and school district for educational
purposes. If the officers of school dis
trict may levy special taxes to maintain the
schools under their charge, so may the
Commissioners Of Police determine the
amount of funds required to maintain a
force sufficient to suppress crime and pre-
serve order.
SNYDER VS.. Wampton, IL Iowa, 400; Bor
deIon vs.. Lewis. s An. 472; Cooley's Consti-