New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-10


chapel and ita properties.
Mr.. Bclden, representing the Young sec
; ton Of the congregation, took rule to set
aside the said order OF appeal, on the
ground that the court must have granted
the came under \ nisapprehenslon and
under the belief that the appeal had been
! taken in another suit between the said
parties.
After the argument upon the rule, Judge
Dibble ordered that the order granting the
appeal be set aside, for the reason that the
court supposed in granting the appeal that
il had been asked for in case No. 70, and
mot in the injunction suit Judge Dibble
said that an appeal would not lie from an
order granting an injunction.
/ trial at an early day. In the meantime the
Noraga wing Of the congregation will have
5 to take back seats.
An Appeal In the Spnlding Suit.
The counsel for Spalding. policeman
injured in the Jefferson City riots, has taken
m appeal in the suit for damages against
the city Of New Orleans, which was decided
(. in the Eighth District Court in favor of the
city by Judge Hawkins, sitting in place Of
Judge Dibble, who recused himself.
Fifth District Contradiction Against the
City.
Thomas Casserly vs.. the City of New Or
lcans.-The plaintiff III this case brought
suit against the city to recover the sum OF
$20.26O for this: That on the first of Janu-
airy, 1869, the city became the sole owner of
the City Waterworke, with all its construc-
tions, ETC.; that anterior to the proprietor
i ship Of the city, the affairs OF said works
4 were administered by Il board of commits
9iOners having full power to manage and
dispose OF the use Of ats waters; that they
Aat for several years contracted to pc
titiOner the exclusive light to Use its waters
in sprinkling the streets and roadways Of
the city for the purpose of laying the dust:
that when the said city became the owner
4 Riesioncrs, with A. Bosworth fer pres
Il jdent, and BraxtOn Bragg for Superin-
/. .tendcnt, was as before placed in the admin
q istratiOn and management OF said works
4 and its affairs; that they were to use the
( oAme power as was vested in the board I'M
! der the original owners until such time as
It pleased the city fathers otherwise to pro-
vide; that the said board, its president and
superintendent, in all that they did, acted
for and on account OF the city of New Or
leans; that the city, through the board
aforesaid, contracted with petitioner for an
aggregate sum of $500, being $40 per rum
ming square, the obligation of delivering to
him and maintaining in him, for the period
Of o year, the exclusive right to and the use
certain extent of streets within the limits
Of the corporation; that petitioner tender ed
s performance of his obligations under said
contract, and ever held himself ready to
perform them; that Immediately on the con-
clusion Of the contract, he commenced the
exercise of his right, sent forth his
carts, obtained his licenses, and con-
y finued openly to enjoy his privileges for
above month without hindrance or Oppo-
<hnk 1,o thou tod wi
cause. at the instance of the said commits
siOners and superintendent, and his water
-scarts stepped without any explanation or
notice whatever, wherein he had failed in
the performance of his obligations; nor was
it until April, 1869, that the commissioners
forced by legal process to break their 81
hence, disclosed to him that they pretended
he had not complied with their terms, and
that they had rescinded said contract, al
though he had not been put by them in de-
fault, or afforded any opportunity for ex-
PLANTATION; that in defiance of law and JUS
ticc they, while pretending to consider the
amount paid by petitioner upon his contract
tOo small, did wrest from him it's benefits,
conferred them on one Thomas Mcknight
for q smaller price and upon less advantage
Gus terms; i'll consequence of which he
X suffered damages to the extent of $50. $50
Judge beaumont has rendered judgment
against the city as above in the sum Of
$4,000.
Fourth District Court.
A. 3. Miller VS.. u. W. Chandle-.-suir TO
recover the sum of $2l49, for One-tliird of
( profits of steamer Welcome from December
8 1869, to January 81, 1870. Petitioner
alleges that he engaged as captain on the
steamer, and was to receive for his services
third Of the profits, which amounted to
the sum aforesaid.
Defendant claims that the boat. instead
Of making money, lost it, and furthermore
brings suit in recOnvention to recover
436D for certain prOmissory note, signed
by Miller, in his possession. Miller answers
the unconventional demand by pleading his
discharge in bankruptcy.
John C.. GOlding VS.. John p Casey.-The
plaintiff, formerly assessor Of State taxes in
the Fourth District Of New Orleans, claims
that when he was superseded in office by
completed the assessment rolls of said dis
trict for the year 1868, and in consideration
Of such1serviccs aforesaid, Casey expressly
agreed that he would pay petitioner one.
half the fees, cmOluments and revenues OF
said office for the said year, and would
make an equal division thereof.
He claims that Casey has failed to divide
Of warrant of the State Auditor, and he
sues to recover his share.
Sixth District Court-The Damage Suit
M Against the Railroad.
The su;t Of A. II. Myers Va. the jackson
4. railroad, claiming damages in the sum OF
~, OO3 for an alleged tjectment from the
cars OF the company, is still being argued
before jury in the Sixth District Court.
The court room WAS closely packed yes
terlay by members Of the bar and others
listening To the argument of General John
4 y. Freeman, who appears for the plaintiff
49, tho Bar.
We reproduce, in our court column, the
following act Of the Legislature, which has
4 just boon officially promulgated in this pa
: per, rs it is Of great importance to members
Y Of the bar:
An act relative to bonds taken in cases Of
arrest, attachment, seguestrati0n and
provisional seizure, and to suits agains,
Joint 0bligors.
SECTION l. Be it enacted by the Senat,
md House of Representatives of the STATE
-TMLo uisiana in General Assembly convened
THAT In all cases of arrest, attachment, ST.
& nnestr,,tion and provisional seizure, il
vhich bends are required to be given by thu
mIaintiff p,eviOus to the issuing of the writ
the bond 40 given shall be made payable t,
4; ne clerk of the court which issues the writ
y Snd the defeni liant, as well as every person
( rarity to the suit, or injured by the issuin.
81 The said writ shall have recourse Thereon
arainst the principal and securities on the
hond for any damage they may sustain
n ease such writ should have been wrong
fully issued, and in CSse the plaintiff should
cause the writ to isss,sse against certain spe