New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-01-18
THE COURTS.
Eiab,h District COurt-The Loan and
Pledge Associa aliOn-lIandam 10 Conc
ceI the Calling Of a Meeting Of stock.
hntdprs.

Eighth District COurt-The Loan snd
Pledge -tIandamus TO Com.
peI the Calling Of a Meeting Of Stock
holders.
Amandanus has been applied for before
the Eighth District Court, Judge Obbie,
by f. c. Mahan, a stockholder IN the above
named association. to compel tie directors
to cal! meeting Of the stockholders III Or
der to put a stop to alleged unwarranted
loans upon Slaughterhouse stock, etc.
The petition sets forth that the ;,ssocia-
ton in one instance recently loaned to r.
G. Benton the sum of $l0,50 upor a pledge
of 4:sj shares OF the Crescent City Live
Stock Landing and Slaughterhouse Com
panv, which he alleges is not worth the
amount over that loaned as required by the
charter in the matter of collaterais.
There are also other charges OF improper
loariny Of the moneys Of the stockholders
i'll the petition. which the petitioner seeks
to have checked by q mandamus COM
pellng the calling Of - mee:in. o! she
stockholders.
The Old Board OF State Assessors vs.
Auditor G.aham-New Trial Refused and
Man,l;mus Made Peremptory.-Judgc Dib-
bic Yesterday morning delivered an oral
opinion in the matter Of the State ex rel.
James O'Neiu c: ais. composing the Old
Board OF State Assessors, upon an appilcai-
ton for manaarEus to compel Auditor
Graham 10 warrant tor CERTAIN aUdIuonal
compensation claimed.
The decision was upon new trial asked
for bv the Attorney General, Judge Dbble
1ct,lsin. the same for reasons gwen upon
the first trial OF the cause. The Judge or
,lere,! that the n.ardamus be made perenp-
! tory.
! III the matter Of Elizabeth Mullaly VS..
JOHN Nu!laly. praying FOR a separation OF
property between herself and husband, the
Judge refused the prayer, upon tie ground
| that the testimony o. one witness was NOT
! sufficient: There must be more evidence.
The Judge granted the divorce asked for
! in the cas-. OF Matilda PecOra vs.. Eer hus-
| band.
The Matter OF Jurisdiction IN Appeals
from Justice Courts.
! Mary z. Caldwell VS.. Hugh Mathews and
! Daniel Crowley. Constablc.-The plaintiff
! prayeu for and obtained an injunction to
stop the execution OF certain judgments rem
tercd by thc First Justice OF the Peace.
She alleges :h:: the defendant. Mathews.
has caused 70 be seized some six thousand
! dollars worth o.! property belonging to
plaintiff upon judgments obtained against
! one William Ma.lady. She AYERS that the
! property does not belong to Nallady. and
that the proceedings are veXatious and have
caused her great damage.
Defendants except to TIE Jurisdiction oi
the court. The exception is well taken.
| ju the case Of George Merz VS.. 4. New
loy. and James Irwin, constable. heretofore
decided. took the view that all wrlts OF
Injunction to restrain the consta ties II this
parish must issue irom the Third District
Court stated. although TIE statute
! creating this court vcs:s'it with exclusive
jurisdiction over al original injunction suits
| in ordinary civil matters. It Is clear tnat II
! was intended "a continue to the Third DIS
1 ,1vt .Nfc q
; tees Of the peace in this PARISH. the full
and exclusive supervision ANA control oven
the judgments OF the justices 6: the peace
and over the acts oI their co.stables.'
; This exclusive jurisdiction - conferred
upon the Third Distrc: Court by section
; III OF act No. II OF 1860. The following
explicit language is used: In all cases
when :. party shall have cause 20 complain
Of any .ild dgmeIt Of q justice o: The peace
or Of his deputies. and shall think propel
10 apply to d higher court 10y rellef. bS
wrts OF injunction. mandamus. sequestr,t
ton, action OF nulli:y, Or otherwise. 4 sha
be to his Third eour: only. and to nt
other that he shall apply for re!te:.
1T Is evident to me that thls detn:'t
jurisdiction was IL no wise intcrte"cd VIII
r bv the sta.l1t. If sixteenth March. 1870
Section ee..u .e:.Gs =. fellows That th'
: Tni-H W .ict Gears. 81 Iavc exclusive
! jurisdiction over al: appeals from justices
o, the Peace. and shall have power t" ISSUE
! all conservatory writs necessary (" th'
exercise of such appellate jurisdiction.
The statute o: 1865, in relation 70 th'
. jurisdiction OF the Third District Court il
no wav conflicts with the law 0! 1870 aE'
, is no, abroga.eG by the repeating claIsc o
the later act.
t The exception Must be maintained, aH'
| the suit dismissed at plaintiff $ costs.
| Seventh District Court-An Interesting
Mercantile Question.
ease was up for trial yesterday tefor
this court by 4 jury of merchants, III wh!c
: Schaffer Il Co.. OF New York. are plaintiffs
! and Pike, Brother & Co., Of New Orleans
are defendants. involving a very nice Cues
] chasers of bills of exchange.
7 | 1t seems that in March, 1869. one ).
Forbes drew bill of exchange on 4.
Schaiirr & Co. OF New York. to his own OF
der. and in.lorsed in blank, tor The sum q
8 Sll .2G2 So payable at sight; that Nadd
Thom1sou took this bill Of exchange, t
! which he tad ixed a bill of ladjrg signe
: by julius Pratt, captain OF the brig {.
Colson. acknowledging the receipt OF on
c ! hundred and twenty lone bales OF cotton. t
@ ! he delivered IN Liverpool, to Pike. Frothe
Il Co.. ana sold it at the ordinary rate
! discount.
Pike. Brother l. Co. sent the tiN o: e,
: change with the bill OF lading attached, t
. their correspondent in New York, who p!'
sentcd the bill 10 Schater n c., BY wEol
it was paid.
Subsequently the frauds pCacticed II
, loading tie Colson with sham cotton weI
discovered, and the bill of ladin. held b
: Schatter ceased to be the valuable sec.rit
it was Supposed to be when taken.
Now this suit ia instituted to make ltk'
Brother l. Co. refund the amount pal
| them on the bill OF exchange, OH tie groun
r that the verify Of the bill OF iading wa
guaranteed by them.
L Fourth District COurt-Intefes.ing De
e cision hy Judge Thenrd.
{ Whe.ess 4 Pratt vs.. F.. NJ. Fsk.-Tiis
! !. sui. for "A balance due plaintiffs for cas-
! | advances interest and commissions uIO
certain purchases and sales of gold made
them, bv order aud tor, account OF d'
I! ! t.ndant.
= The defense is:
. l. That the contract was Of an sleatOr
y, character and therefore immoral and TO
u hidden bv law, because it was not conten
!! plated that the gold should be actually pu
G chased.
But the evidence is conclusive that tn
actual bona tide purchase of the gold Wa
T not only contemplated, but was really mad
t bv the plaintiffs in exact accordance wit
, defendants orders. The contract, Their
fore, was perfectly legal.
.. That the plaintiffs had no righ: to sc
r the gold without defendants orders, or :
e least without q different notice from ths
: given herein.
;, Plaintiffs bought this gold under tn
Ii order Of defendant, and paid for 1t part
:. with their own money and partly with
: certain sum of money advanced by defen'