New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-16

the frame and the wall should not be closed
and cemented and for the reason that an
opening in a wall can not cause irepara0Ie
injury; the same can be closed at any tine,
and the things replaced in their former anu
original situation.
The PRAYER was granted, and supple
mental petition was presented by the PLAN,
tiff to reipstate the original injunction, and
was argued upon motion 10 snow cause,
and the Injunction not allowed
The Mexican Gulf Ship Canal and the
City Drainage.
A rule nisi for an injunction, sued out by
the Attorney General against the MISSISSIPPI
ri and Mexican Gulf Ship Canal Company,
came up for argument yesterday.
Defendant appeared and answered to the
rule, denying that the State was entitled to
an Injunction.
l. That the petition asking for the injunc
ton was not sworn to.
9. That on its face there were no legal
grounds for an injunction.
3. That the allegations of the petition
were false, and afiidavits were filed show
ing their falsehood, and, even if true, there
we're no grounds for an injunction.
4. That if the company had done any acts
to forfeit its charter which was denied I'M
der oath in whole and in every particular,
yet writ of injunction was not legal pro-
cess in such case, and was not authorized
by law.
The Attorney General was not ready to
proceed in the case, and desired it con-
tinued.
CITY Attorney Lacey, who represented
one OF the defendants in the rule, wished it
continued he wanted time to consider and
determine what course the interests of the
city demanded in the matter.
Counsel for the Mississippi and Mexican
Gulf Ship Canal Company opposed the con
tinuance, on the ground that an act Of the
legislature was delayed and prevented
from execution by an application for an
injunction, mere rule ntSt, which, 1t was
commended, on its face showed no grounds
for an injunction, which was not sworn to,
and yet was contradicted in all its allega-
lions by several atfidavits.
As for the city, it had no right to have
the case postponed. 1t was virtually
third party, a stakeholder which would not
be affected by any ruling of the case, 1t
could not therefore continue the case when
the party in real interest insisted upon
trial.
The counsel for the State contended for
continuance, and argued that 1T was to
enforce an act of the Legislature providing
for suits for forfeiture OF charter, that this
process was asked for. Judge Dibble stated
that the Injunction must be sworn to, and
that he would give the plaintiff until Mon
day to meet the grounds stated in the
return of the defendant. In the meantime,
he wished TO call attention to very i'm
proper interference, in serving and issuing
the process in this case by Mr.. Brott, an
officer of the Ship Island Canal Company,
who had instructed the officer of the court
to serve only the rule and not the petition
in this case. Such interference he would
not allow, and desired the parties to bear it
in mind
Sixth District COurt-AnOther Verdict
Against the City.
In the suit of q Jefferson City policeman
VS.. the city of New Orleans, for salary
during the year 1869, which was tried yes
terday before the Sixth District Court, and
in which the Hon. William Rufus Crane APP
peared on behalf of the city, the jury
brought in a verdict for plaintiff
Judge Cooley, when the jury was about
to retire, called up several of them to him
in succession, and inquired soto UOce
whether they could write. A negative was
quietly given in each case, until Jacob
Friedhoff, white iuryman, was reached,
who replied very confidently in the attirIna-
tive, and he was thereupUn appointed fore
man of the jury.
The following is true copy of the YER
dict returned and Endorsed upon the papers.
1t is hardly necessary to add that counsel
OF Crane twas astOnished beyond measure
at the result but consoles himself with the
could influence the authors Of such con-
structed verdict:
New Orleans Apriel IA 1871 in favor to
the Pleintif to tow hundert and twenty ief
Dolls nit Entret by Law Cost paid by Sity.
JACOB FRlEDHOFF, Foreman.
United States District Court, Judge E. H.
DurelI PresidinE-Tn ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
May VS.. Philip Crooks.
This was an action brought by the libel
ant to recover damages from the respondent
under the following facts:
The respondent, Captain Crooks, was the
captain of the steamboat Ozark, which ran
between Bayou Macon, on the Tensas river,
and New Orleans; the libelant, Mrs. May,
was chambermaid on the boat in January
last; on the twenty-seventh day OF that
month, while the boat was on her way down
to New Orleans, and in the Tensas river,
the libelant was put ashore at the Anchor
landing, a place about twenty or twenty
five miles from the Mississippi river, for
some alleged affront to the captains wife by
the hbelant. At the time of her being put
ashore she was sick, had been sick some
two days before, and was abused and in
suited by the respondent, compelled to arise
from a sick bed and leave the boat in a
drenching rain, and to wade in the mud at
the landing over shoe top. The boat left
the hbelant at the Anchor plantation with
| Out u suSlteIy anu Win hO CAObuAuB CAcSpA
what she had on.
The next day she hired a horse, and rode
a distance of some twenty-five miles, as she
\ states, to the Waterproof Landing, where
\ she took the r. K. Lee, and arrived at this
city on the thirty-first 81 January, very
weak and feeble from her sickness and eX
posure Shortly after her arrival here, she
1 went before Commissioner Weller and OBJ
tanned a summons for her wages and somt
expenses, who, il seems, allowed her $3l %
| which was received by him from Captain
Crooks, and he paid her out Of that sun
S26 70, as she states, charging her with bal
costs because she sued for her wages with
out making demand for them,
In this suit, by her libel, she demande'
$1,000 damages, and by which it also appear
that she was put TO an expense of $29 20,
The respondent, by his answer, admitte'
the material allegations Of the libel; set u
as justification alleged importantly, in
suit, and the slapping of the face of tn
captains wife by the libelant.
; This was denied by the libeIant, and Their
was no proof in the case to sustain any sucl
charge.
The respondent IN his answer claimed o
demanded trial by jury, and this wa
overruled By Judge Durell
Yesterday the proctor for the respondent
in addition to a former answer filed In thi
case, introduced an answer OF exception Z
the Jurisdiction of the court, which wa
overruled, aE the cost Of the proctor.
The testimony of the Ebelant ia regar
, to the maltfeatment Of the hbelant BIZ tn
, respondent, and his violent profanity an
2 abuse. the condition tOf the hbelant as
heF health, etc, was corroborated by one
(. The colored servants OF the boat, who hs
y assisted Eer on Shore
|I II 4. M. to-