New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-04
ale,p 0rleans Republican.
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF NEW ORLEANS
rHE COURTS.
Sixth District Court-The Poydras Asylum
ST. Charles Street Property.

Thomas B. Lee has applied for and OBJ
s tanned an Injunction in the Sixth District
Court to restrain the Sheriff of New Orleans
from proceeding TO execute writ OF herl
facias upon a judgment OF said court, In the
suit of the city of New Orleans against two
lots of ground in the square bounded by ST.
Charles, Julia, ST. Joseph and Carondelet
streets, and belonging to the Poydras Fe-
male Asylum, and leased by petitioner for
the term of fifty years from the year 1857.
Petitioner alleges that in the first place the
property is not taxable, but that If 1t is,
that under the article of the Code of Prac-
tice the lessor, and not the lessee, is respon-
sible for taxes.
In recent decision in the Supreme Court
in the case of DR.. Campbell VS.. the State,
for taxes, a lessee of a portion of the same
property, the court held that DR.. Campbell
was a tenant, and was not liable for taxes,
and intimated though it did not decide the
point, that the asylum being charitable
institution. its property was not taxable.
Seventh District Court.
MeStea g. Value VS.. j. A. Peckert e. Co.
In this case, in which was involved a cues
ton of fact as to whether or not w. A.
Hauney was member of the firm OF D. A
Peckert g. Co., who keep country store at
st. Marys, Texas, Judge Collens, of the
Seventh District Court, has rendered a
lengthy opinion, in which he gives judgment
for plaintiffs against Hauney.
Eighth District Court-The SlaughterhOuse
Difficulties.
There came up yesterday, before the
Eighth District Court, the great issues
pending between Messrs. Mehle & Co. and
the Crescent City Live Stock Landing and
Slaughterhouse Company. in which the
right Of the said company to remove its
abattoirs, etc, from Algiers to the left
bank of the river is to be tested and passed
upon, and alse the movement made by the
Attorney General to prevent the said re-
moval in the name of the State.
In the case of Messrs. Mehle & Co, who
arestockholders in said company, and re-
ceivers and dealers in live stock upon the
right bank, it is set up that irreparable in
jury will accrue to them II said contem-
plated removal takes place.
In the case of the Attorney General it is
set up that as the company have established
under the requirements of the law of the
Legislature, relating to them, a general
slaughterhouse upon the right bank, and it
is not admissible for the company now to
remeve the same and that if they do so
they will violate the charter granted to
them by the State.
The question first taken up was the rule
nisi ordered upon an application in a sup
Elemental petition for an injunction applied
for by Messrs. Mehle & Co., to prevent the
dissolve.
The argument, after having proceeded at
some length, was continued over until
to-day
The Mississippi and Mexican Canal Case.
In the suit of the State VS.. the above COM
pany, a motion was made in the Eighth Dis
triet Court to set aside a default, and an
answer fled
The answer is a general denial. 1t admits
it's incorporation, and that it has received
bonds of the State for the construction of its
canal as alleged; but it denies that any part
of the proceeds of the sale or hypOthecation
of said bonds has been diverted from the
objects to which they are required to be APP
piled by the provisions of said act No. 116
of the acts of 1869, and aver that the entire
proceeds of said bonds, together with fur
Their sum of over 100000 derived by it
from other and private sources. have been
applied by it in opening said canal, and
other purposes authorized by said act
The company admits that under the ex-
press authority of the State of Louisiana,
and in accordance with the solemn express
sion of its legislative WILL as embodied in
act No. 30 Of the acts of 1871, it is about to
comply in good faith with the provisions of
said act relating to drainage, and has thus
far complied with the requirements of said
act as far as lay in its power, but denies
that its acts or intentions in this regard
afford any ground of action against it by
the State of Louisiana, or that the Attorney
General has authority to bring suit against
it in the name of the State of Louisiana up
on any such grounds.
Respondent prays that after these pro-
ceedings there be judgment in its favor up
on all the demands set forth in the petition
with costs for annual relief.
United States District Court.
The United States VS.. Hardy Took, John
Hays, James Sheehe, c. Q. Butler, etc.
This was a trial upon an Indictment under
the civil rights bill. The parties above
named were accused of shooting and nearly
numbering William II. Honneus on the
night of the twenty-sixth of May, 1868. 1t
appears, according to the testimony of Mr..
Honneus and his wife, that on that night
these parties came to his house, in the
parish of Bienville; that he was called out
to his gate under pretense that some parties
wished to see him on business; that he, sus-
pecting nothing wrong, went out to the
gate in front of his house, when he saw
Took, Hays, Sheehe, Butler and a brother
of Hardy Took; the moment he reached the
gate shot was fired from a revolver which
grazed the top of his head; that Immediately
upon this shot being fired several others
followed in quick succession, the balls or
bullets of which struck and wounded him in
several places, from the effects OF which he
has never entirely recovered.
Both Mr.. and Mrs. Honneus recognized
the parties named as being present at the
time of the alleged shooting. 1t was also
proved on the part of the prosecution that
justice could not be had in the parish of
Bienville until about a year ago
Mr.. Honneus was a Republican, and it
was for this that he was wounded so nearly
unto death and was obliged to fly the par
ish, leave his property there and save his
life. He has never returned there nor has
he dared to do sO since this murderous at
tempt upon his life.
Several colored witnesses testified in the
case for the prosecution, but so great was
their fear and intimidation that they were
unable to identify any one who did the
shooting.
The defense was an alibi, which was
proved sufficiently satisfactory to the minds
of the jury impaneled without the use of
the test oath, SO that they brought III a YER
dict of not guilty.
The case was submitted without argu-
ment by the counsel for the defense and
prosecution, under just and fair charge
from the presiding judge.
Commissioner WeIIer's Court.
Eight of the crew of the steamer Nicholas
Longworth made complaint that they had
shipped on the boat at Louisville, to 90 to
New Orleans and return but that the cap
tain of the vessel, in violation of his bargain,
had discharged them at this port. The com
missioner gave judgment that they should
receive each the sum of four dollars, to paw
their passage back to Louisville.
New Orleans and Havana.
From the Price Currentl
The New Orleans and Mobile railroad is q