New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-09
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court.

several sliitS instituted Ill lac ciSntn U.s.
| tr;ct Court against the state Auditor and
the State Board of Liqnidat9rs.
The first case called was that of Samuel
Smith & Go. VS.. John G. Gaines ct al. in
which an injunction is asked for to restrain
the president OF the Citizens Bank from
| dispOSinG OF certain bonds OF the State,
alleged To be in the possession Of the bank
as Fiscal Agent of the State, until their
claims for 10000 in warrants OF the State,
shall have been passed upon ANA funded i'll
| the said bonds, i'll accordance with the pro-
visions OF a recent act of the Leg gislature.
The following supplemental answer was
filed in the case by the attorney OF the
bank. The case. upon motion OF Nlr. Miller,
| OF Mcssrs. Lea, Finney q Miller, represent
ing the relatOr. was continued over until
Tuesday next, the fourteenth instant. and
the witnesses summoned IN the case dis
missed until that time. There were pres
ent IN the courtroom Mr.. Gaines. President
of tlc Citizens Bank. Hon. John Ray,
Secretary OF State Bovec and others.
ANSWER OF TIE EASK.
The supplemental answer of the Citizens
Bank Of Louisiana, through Armand PetOt,
| their attorney:
The undersigned attorney, having found
among his papers on l.is return from the
country the petition filed in this ease. to-
gethcr with the letter of Samuel Smith Il
| Co. to the bank, fastened to file au answer
! TO protect the bank hy calling the said
Samuel Smith & Co. to defend his rights,
| and protect the bank in time for the return
to the mandamus Oh the eighth instant.
That Oh his return from court the under
signed learned from the president Of the
bank that i'll his said capacity he had al
ready received an order from the liquida-
tors OF the floating debt Of the State of
Louisiana to deliver them all the bonds in
possession of the bank, as shown per copy
OF said order. filed i'll suit of Samuel Smith
/, Co. vs.. John G. Gaines ct al. of the
docket of this honor. bic court
The Citizens Bank OF Louisiana, there
fore, prays to have leave to amend their
answer to the claim of the present plaintiffs
by pleading that they are bound to deliver
said bonds to the said board OF liqui.lators,
20 be by them distributed under the law
authorizing them to do SO.
Re>londent. therefore, prays that plain
titis' demand be dismissed with costs.
The next case called was that Of Messrs.
SalomOn h Simpson VS. the State Auditor
to compel the payment OF the claim of J.
o. Nixon, Esq, for some S50,OO0, to the
right OF which they have been subrogated,
which, upon motion OF the Attorney Cen
eral, representing the State was continued
over until "Wednesday next, the fifteenth
instant.
The st. James chapel suits-The Saugh-
terhouse and the Butchers.-The several
rules i'll the suits growing out of the famous
st. james chapel controversy, one for con-
tempt and one to set aside the order of sus-
pension appeal granted, which it seems was
granted 10y the court under Il misapprehen-
sion, Will come up for argument to-day.
The appeal which was taken by Judge Cot
ton for the NOraga wing OF the disputauts.
il appears. was allowed in the suit No. 81,
and not in the injunction suit. the court
stating that an appeal would not lie in the
injunction suit, as the order III that suit was
an interlOcutory one and could not be ap-
peaied from.
The suit of the Slaug ghterIoUse Company
in the Eighth District Court. IN which it is
sought to compel the transfer of some sew
entecn suits, instituted by butchers against
the company i'll the Seventh District Court.
was in progress before Judge Dibble.
Judge Cotton for the butchers and Mr.
Horner for the company. The ease was
subsequently submitted.
Sixth District Court.-The Twenty.liv
Thousand Dollar Damage Suit Against
the jackson Railroad.
The suit for damages against the jackson
Railroad Company. in which A. b. Myers
claims $4,000 for having been put off the
cars Of the said company while en- route
from New York to this city, is being ar
gued before Il jury in the Sixth District
Court.
Fourth District Court.-Another Damage
Suit Against the jackson Railroad.
On the twenty-ninth of October, 1870.
petitioner left New Orleans, bound for
Clarksville, Tennessee on a train OF said
company. having with him locked valise
containing among other articles one black
cloth coat and one pair of black pants.
That said valise was delivered to the agent
of the company, who checked it to Hum
boldt, and upon arriving at Humboldt
petitioner gave up his check and received
the valise and contents, less the said coat
and pants, which had been distracted he
tween New Orleans and Humboldt, peti-
toner not knowing at the time he gave up
his check that the coat and pants were
missing. That upon arriving at Clarksville
he opened the wallis. and discovered the
loss above stated, the valise never having
been out of his sight from the time he
left New Orleans until he reached Clarks-
vile.
Petitioner AYERS that said coat and pants
were perfectly new, and were worth sixty
five dollars. He further claims that he was
put to great annoyance and damage in con-
sequence Of said loss, which he had pro-
cured for u special purpose, and that he
has been compelled to employ counsel 10
prosecute this claim, and that he has thus
sustained further damages TO the extent of
fifty dollars.
Seventh District Court-Interesting Com.
mercial Decision.
Judge Collcns yesterday delivered an in
tcresting opinion in the suit OF p. Bradley
& Co., VS.. Mrs. S. A. Woodruff ct al. from
which we quote the following:
The plaintiffs commission merchants) sue
the defendants (planters) for a balance in
account current, and claim a privilege on
twelve bales of cotton, sequestered. The
plaintiffs pray for judgment, not only for the
privilege, but against defendants personally,
for the balance, amounting to Sl77O, but
defendants are residents of the parish Of st.
Bernard, and have excepted to the jurisdic-
tion Of this court. Their exception has been
sustained in regard to the personal jurisdic-
ton, but Ovcrrulcd on the question of the
enforcement OF the alleged privileges.
Hence the inquiry is limited to ascertaining
whether or not, and for how much, that
pri, ilegc exists.
The firm OF T. Bradley g. Co. is composed
OF T.. Bradley and j. II. Williams. The
latter carried on, independently of his firm,
Il cotton ginnery and pickery, and it was to
hilu. one OF the partners, the firm sold the
cotton sent to them by defendants. These
sales were made without the intervention of
Il broker, nor was any disintereSted or
regular weigher called in to ascertain the
weight of the sacks when delivered to Will
liams. Even Bradley himself did not at
tend to the weighing, but left it entirely to
Williams. Then, when they rendered the
account, they omitted to state the weights.
They merely report the sum of net proceeds.
Such way of dealing with the property OF
law of mandate, and in violation Of their
Ohlira tiona "a arpnts factors and baileeS