New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-02
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court.

a short time since by c. S. Sauvinet. Civil
Sheriff, against the proprietor Of the '.Eank
drinking saloon. Royal street, in which
| Eve Thousand dollars damages are
claimed for n refusal by defendant to enter
/ tain plaintiff on account OF his color After
| the calling o! the jury drawn for this court
| by the Sheriff, the counsel for the plaintiff
| filed the following objections TO :hc same:
|. Tie law is peremptory in ordering the
! Sheriff oi the parish o. Orleans to make. in
| the month OF December III eaci. year "A lis.
| III the qualified electors OF the parish to
serve as jnrors III the civitrolr:S: the Shcrif;
| having failed to make such Is; in the month
OF Deern.'er, 1870 10 i.!,y tor the year lS1 /
can be legally drawn,
| :. he panel iOr the iliro:S fu9 :he present
term has not been Ciisws! from Il list u
| qualified electors OF the Ea.lSi! OF Orleans.
| hecal:s". first. the Sheriff Las merely cOri.al
| TIE il$t ot the registered voters obtaincd
! from tie state Reg glstrar, and though regis-
| tra;ian is an evidence OF qualification as an
| ciector, non reg lstr&tiOn j. no: evidence ni
| Il lack OF qualification: second, the law l,,-
| Our"S the Sheriff to make his own list Of
! qualified electors, and lle must no. limit
himself to the registration list: third, the
registration OF voters preparatory to the
! election of November, 1916. excluded! MANY
| citizens who were Disqualified by article
ninety mn" OF the constitution of The State.
| Int X the clection held or the seventh day
| OF November. 1870. an amcndmcu. 70 said
! article E!netynine was adopted, whereby
| Il very large number Of cl;izens excluded
under tie rcg.stra:lcn become qualified
electors. and their E;.ILeS should he on thc
Jury list tar the yea. ls7i.
Also. tie following challenge was sub
m;;trt:
The Sheriff Of the parish OF Orleans is a.
party 10 and personally interested IL this
ss,lt; hence d panel OF Jurors drawn and
Summoned by him are Incompetent 10 try
the cause.
The 1rst objections were taken 40 and
discussed 1T le1igth by counsel.
II the end. however. the juGre over-u ed
the motion 10 quaSh, On the ground that it
would te physically impossible for the
sheriff to Obtain :. lis, o. Jurors troIG anv
other source than the list OF registered
voters.
As 70 thc question ot the amendment
made 10 article nincty-n.ne OF the consti,u-
Ii,ri O. the State, ne did rot think that
could be brought forward its an objection 10
tie drawing. a. Ike names Of the persons
entranchiscd by The sane could Dot well
be aSce-taiucd un.ll the next registration
list was made out.
IN i.sssing uDon the,seconG objection. tia.
OF personal interest On Ike Part OF tue Sheriff
IL the suit at the bar. the court said that
w'.ile TINS world rot be an objection 20 the
Whole draw ing q: the iurv from the rer;s.ra-
tlon LISTS, Il Was an objection III the matter of
the particular panel draw,t in TINS case and
that he would ORDER the Coroner 10 draw a
fresh list for this s;lit.
The jury SAID Judge pihblr should not
be drawn by a party interested; IL auv way
IL a suit foi' which !, was Drawn to pass
ur"n.
The case Was, therefore. postponed until
a further occasion. Il will probably how
ever, bc fixed again al an caIiy tlav.
IN the matter OF the railing OF the court
upon the first series OF objections raised,
tlc counsel for the detnE, al. have reserved
4 bill :. exceptions.
All injunction agains. he Morgan Texas
rail- oaG.-A. nruett ct ais. have aiken out
an injunction in the Eighth District Court
- restr@in Aessrs. Charles Morgan aud
George !'anaelv from digging dirt ana
making alleged alarming excata.ions upon
Their plantation. situated n the parish OF
jefferson. righ; bank, thirteen miles above
the city.
The DIRT. II appears. was 20 lie used Tor
the Ell banlment of the Morgan ard Texas
railroad.
Judgements in Sundry Gases.
IL the case of Atwood Iiole, VS.. Robert
Pipkin ct ais, in which !! promissory note Of
500 was sued upon. the jury OF the Eighth
District Court yesterday rendered a verdict
tor $40 Judgment accordingly.
IN the suit OF Michael Duncan VS.. Mary
Duncan. his sister, in which an Injunction
had been allowed the plaintiff to restrain
the defendant from collecting the rent of a
house and lot Oh Prytania street. Judge
Dibble has dissolved the Injunction. and
awarded the sister $500 damages
The rule TOR contempt in the case OF j. Il
Mckee VS.. s. Griffin 4 Co.. in which the
defendants were charged with not comply
ing with the orders OF the court, has been
tried before Judge Dibhle and disinisscd
F0urth District Court.
Mary Mcdonald VS. Brooks, Mcdonald &
Co., IN liquidation. This is a salt brought
to recover s3da0 in gold on bill of exchange
alleged to have been drawn at New Orleans
August =. 1867, by Hugh Mcdonald & Co..
Of New Orleans, payable at sight, and ac-
repted bv Brooks, Mcdonald & Co., drawn
to the order OF petitioner.
The answer of the defendants, Brooks
and Legay, of the said firm. claims that the !
is not the bona fde holder of the |
said bill of exchange. They also aver that
they had no knowledge OF the existence oi
said acceptance, and the saIre was never |
entered on the books of the firm of Brooks, !
Il Co. by TIE said Hugh Ne |
Donald tine drawer thereof. who accepted |
tpc same without authority. iii the name Of |
said firm; that no consideration whatever
passed between the firm and the plaintiff
for said acceptance; that it was % private
ihair between the plaintiff and Hugh Ne |
Donald, her brother, the drawer, with |
which the firm had no connection, and in
which It had no interest, nor was it given
II the usual course of business, and the re-
'pondcnts believe that said acceptance was
lot issued at the time it bears date, but was
'xecuted in the game of the firm by said
lugh Mcdonald, long after the discharge
hereof.
They pray also for a special jury Of
merchants.
Judge Theard has issued the following
rider
Hereafter the prayer for special jury
will not been tertaiped, unless the case com
lies with the strict letter of the Code of
Practice.
There have been entered against the city
uits by six property holders in the vicinity
f Orleans St. Anne, Napoleon and Sole
non streets, for damages to property, con-
egueAt upon an overflow. and a non
ulfilment of the city in contracting
0 keep the canals from overfowing their
anks.
Sixth District Court.
Frank Cookery VS.. Preston Work and John
Y. Tobin.-Petitioner claims that on the
of October, 1868, he leased
ON the defendants the bar of the steamer
icksburg, then running on the Ouachita |
ver, for one year, for the sum of $500, |
nd paid the said sum in advance.
He further shows that after said boat had
Dntinued to run until May 7, 1869,
ie broke her shaft, and was rendered use
ss for navigation. That the defendants,
towed her to Louisville, where
10 WAS hroknn I'm and her machinery