New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-12-06
THE COURTS.

In the Sixth District Court the suits o
several policemen, late Of the City of Je1
fers0n, against the city for services render
ed, came up for trial before q jury. Th
suits are against the city, based on tn,
clause transferring the liabilities of Jeffer
son. with the other rights, corporal and in
corporal, to the city of New Orleans.
Suit was entered by property owner o
the Garden District for five hundred dollars
damages, based on the following state Of
affairs recited:
mat certain shoemaker has erected on
lot adjoining his (plaintiff residence a
wooden shanty, and that the said shoe
maker has declared in public that he in.
tended to annoy. vex and harass the neigh
bors by putting said property to such uses
as should make it nuisance and plague to
the neighbOrhOOd; that he would rent said
property to persons, and would obtain per
sons to occupy and use it so as to annoy and
disturb the neighbOrs thereto to their heart 4
cOntept, and that. with such view in mind,
said shoemaker caused such premises
to be used and occupied, and still
causes it to be used by various
persons, who almost daily and nightly as
semble, and with yells. howls, hooting and
| shrieks, noisy kickings and 6eatings, render
comforts and delights of the neighbors
that said fearful orgies are continued far
into the hours of the night, when all honest
persons should be asleep: and, therefore
the shoemaker should be condemned to pay
petitioner $500 for damages in the premises"
In the Eighth District Court the follow
ing decisions were delivered:
New Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga
railroad VS.. the city of New Orleans Charles
Morgan, intervenor.
This action was commenced by an injunc-
ton to restrain the city from selling to
Charles Morgan. as owner of the franchises
OF the New Orleans, OpelOusas and Great
Western railroad, the square Of ground
known as No. q, and bounded by Girod.
Notre. Dame, Water and Pile streets. The
injunction has been made perpetual, and the
intervention of Charles Morgan is dis
missed.
Pontchartrain Railroad Company vs. New
Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga Railroad
COmpany.-The case relates to the right
OF the defendant to enter upon the two
banquettes in Elysian Fields street. Judg-
nent for defendants, and claim dismissed
State, on information of Simeon Belden.
Attorney General, VS.. the city Of New Or
leans, Charles Morgan. intervenor.
This suit was brought by the Attorney
General for the purpose of maintaining as
against the city the grants made to the
New Orleans, Mobile and Chattanooga rail
road.
For the reasons fled in above suit. udg-
ment is entered for plaintiff The interven-
ton Of Charles Morgan is dismissed.
John Ochiglevich and William P. Healv
vs. the New Orleans, Mobile and Chatta-
nOOga Railroad Company. Petition for an
Injunction to restrain defendants from put
ting their track on a strip of ground on
the levee, and owned by defendants. The
Injunction has been refused.
The New Orleans, Mobile and Chatta-
nOogo Railroad Company vs. the Pontchar-
train Railroad Company. Injunction made
perpetual.
In making the maDdamus ON the Cover
nor, applied for by the Mississippi Valley
Navigation Company, Judge Emerson
makes the following conclusions:
The act recognizes the relatOr as con-
tracting party; it authorizes a subscription |
to its capital stock; provides the means |
and time OF payment; directs the treasurer |
to pay the installments; designates a place
OF deposit for the scrip. and requires the in
terest OF the State in the company to be
represented by three directors to be ap-
pointed by the Governor. All this ia enact
ID without conditions and without any
ierms. either in the title or the act itself. to
Indicate the investment of discretionary
bower in the agent.
/ The intention Of the act clearly was to
make the State stakeholder in the COM
rany, and it has virtually become a stock
tDlder, unless the word authorized in the
,urth section. left it to the Governors
option whether to subscribe or not. If that
lHd been the design of the lawgiver. he
would unquestionably have expressed it in
the title, and framed the act in accordance
With it. The highest courts in England
aM in this country have interpreted the
w'rd may in many instances to mean
'slall, and that Interpretation is usually
gi'en when a public duty is to be per
TONED. 1t is now the settled law that
wiere power in permissive terms is granted
to public officer or agent. to be used for
public benefit, or to advance individual
rights, its exercise is peremptory.
/. Legislature makes laws. and through |
ther enactment it makes contracts. 1t is
pogerless to perform such acts by proxy or
by procuration, but it employs agents to
execute them, who must necessarily be en-
powered to do it. In this case the Legisla-
turshaving no sign-manual, and being un-
able itself as body to subscribe for the
'toct, found it necessary to employ an
ageIt to perform that mere clerical duty.
Nhal, therefore, it authorized the Governor
10 subscribe, it did nothing more than to
lse for that purpose.
Inthis case the title of the act, and the
terlH and principles and requirements
vhlcl follow it, can leave no doubt that it
was be intention of the Legislature to sub
scribe for the stock absolutely.