New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-01-31
THE COURTS.
United states Circuit Court.

United states Circuit Court.
Hcnry Hart vs. J. F.. Knapp. In this
cause the paneling of the jury was COM
pIeted yesterday morning. The trial re
suited in a verdict for the plaintiff OF two
Thousand and three dollars, eighty-three
and three-guartcr cents, with eight per
cent interest from February IA, 1867, until
pad, and costs.
William n. COOksey VS.. tlc bark Fanny
Eaer. In a former suit for services rem
Gered by plaintiff in rescuing the bark from
dangerous position on the bar at the
mouth of the Mississippi, towing. pumping,
etc, until the bark reached Algiers. juds-
nent had been gwen for plaintiff, and the
case referred to Commissioner Cohen to ad-
Just and allow the proper amounts The
owners Of the vessel oppose the homolosa-
ton of the items in the tableau submitted
by TIE Commissioner as excessive. They
complain of the same rs a speculation OA
their misfortune, and pray for Il deduction.
The court. after due advisemcnt, homolo-
gated the account Of the Commissioner.
allowing interest from the date OF homolo-
ga:!0n.
United States VS.. il lot of pictures.-This
sl.t IS on Il libel made on a lot of lner-
| clandise containing large number of OBJ
scene pictures. They had been shipped
from Paris to party in Matamoros, and
had been seized in hunsifi on the ground
that the mere entry at this port acted as ii
forfeiture. A jury trial had been prayed
FOR
The law relating to the importation Of
s,:cn pictures was read to sustain the libel.
For the defense 1t was contended that such
law .iia not affect these goods, because they
we.'' not for home consumption, but tor uoe
i, Mexico. which was apparent by the in
voices and bills of lading. The jury re-
TUNED verdict for defendant
Commissioner WeIicr's Court.
Four of the crew Of the steamer lirsrer
s:,ea the boat for wages. 1t was proved. IN
part by their own testimony, that they had
Jumped" the boat at Iiarvcy's Canal for
10 iustifiabic cause. The Commissioner
gave the men Judgment for the time they
had worked. bu: made them pay the costs.
Thomas l.. Palmer cook on the schooner
DIVER Jameson, made affidavit that while
on the "oyage from New York to New Or
leans the captain OF the vessel cut him
Il bout the head with steel knuckles. in proof
o: which he showed large cicatriX on his
head. and another on the under lip. a war
:.!.. was issued.
supreme COurs Decisions.
tn. following opinions were rendered yes
teciy bv the Supreme Court of Loui>iana:
The State of Louisiana vs.. Peter La
Coi!rt cf the parish of Orieans.-The de
ten,iant has appealed from, a Judgment CON
..elMniuy him TO pay 500 - for Il license
tax. as an exchange broker. He asks the
reversal of the jud gucnt Oh the grounds
J. That the portion OF .hc revenue law of
lS1D .evyiny u license TAX is in cUntlaven-
ton y: article llS OF the constitution.
This question was before Us in the case OF
III. State vs.. Nolknan, reported in ~ Ann,
il..r., I->
held that Il license tax on trades. Occupa-
tons and professions WAS not in eoutlave:i-
ton of tn: constitution. We adhered TO
this opinion III the eases Ct the state V.
King. II Ann. POI. Hod gsen Vs. New Or
leans. u Ann. 3Oi. and State VS.. FoSdc,.
Il Ann. 43!. Therefore. sc must regard
Il" question rs settled.
=. Ii Is :ontended that the license tax
of $500 is claimed undcr the proviso to the
fourth section OF the revenue law Of 1870.
AID that the proviso IS violativc of the
articles 10 and llb OF the constitution.
prohibiting the revision or amendment Of
laws by reference II their titles: or the
adoption OF ii system or code OF laws br
general reference to such s.:.tcm or code OF
laws.
Tile ac: of 1870. No 6s provides a mode of
raising revenues for future years. The act
ot 1909 had alIead, provided for rai>iu /.
revenues for 1870.
Bearing in mind the well known practice
y. the General Assembly OF ievyiny license
taxes before the commencement of the wear
Tor which Il is levied, We STE 10 difficulty iii
tie case.
The. license take. for the year 1870 wc;c
levied :inder the ac. of 1852, and not under
tn. DroviSo OF the fourth section of the
statute OF 1870. as alleged by defendant.
The I,rovi>O in the fourth section in
4; 70, .,.i
sion resulting from the language Of the PIE
Ced;ny portion Of section four.
Iue prOviso is unambiguous: provided.
That the persons or corporations practiciny =
OF pursuing taxed trades or occupation,
snail pay the licenses for the year 1870 pre-
scrl5GG in the revenue law OF 1862 1t
neither revised or amended the act of 1869.
Il simply declared that the license due for
tie year 1870. levied under the act OF 1863
should continue 10 be collected. notwith-
st.lld!ng the revenue law OF 1870, which
might seem to provide otherwise.
3. Is the defendant an exchange broke.
under the act OF 1868? He is not unless
his calling be taxed under the terms ...x-
change dealer"
We are OF opinion that exchange dealer
embraces exchange broker: the terms com
prenc nd all those VINO '.i! OF have tran-ac-
lions II exchange. although all dealers in
exchange may not be br,Acrs. 1t is there
fore ordered that the udgncnt OF the Dis
tEict CONT be affirmed. with costs Of appeal.
j. T. Ludeiing, c. J.
!. G. Murphy g. Co w. Mccarthy & Fin
sertv-Appea! from the Fourth District
Court of New Orlcans-On notion to dis
miss the apDeal.-The motion to dismiss the
appeal in this case is maGe on the ground
that tn, court is without jurisdiction. the
amount sued FOR being Siio.
A rpcon -cnt;oual demand in tifI ease Ot
SO 900 Is set up: This court can only en-
tarta.l jurisdiction in regard to the recon
ventional demand. which : in the nature
OF Il new action. 3 L. 3S.., 10 K. 43S. il =
+. l., - An. 2I2..
l. is therefore ordered that motion to dis
miss be overiuled. y. G. Iaiiatcrro. Jud g.
john Rooney ~. Miss Mary A. May.-Thi>
was an action to recover the price OF wU:h
done on the front of dct. .ndants property
on Peters Avenue. under Il contract with
the City Of Jefferson for making woodcI
cUraS ana cutters with planhs. between
Magazine street ana ST. Charles Avenue.
The defense was that the work was not
done n accordance with the specifications
OF III. contract. There was judgment in
the lower count in favor Of defendant, and
the plaintiff having appealed. this coIc:
held, ;,.tcr citing the testimony Of ,eveca.
cr.ditabIe witnesses. thai tie work was not
in accordance with the contract, and affirm
ed tle decision of the lower ,orv. with coats
Of appe;t,. john I. Lu,!ciin-.
Succession OF Robert E;Lln,'!c. Contest
a.:.a between ieCateeS NEdcr The viii.
An;e:I from Second Distinct Court. parish
ot Or.cans.-The tcs.ator live. IN ililno.s Il.
the time Of lis Cecc"Se. and ieiJ "CnSit."i'-
abb pyoper.v IN Louisiana and Illinois. lie
had .,. heirs either ascending or descending.
=, t.,,,, ~ r.tsg