New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-06-28
lieu, Orleans Republican.
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICIAL JOURNAL or NEW ORLEANS
THE COURTS.

in the high schools. The court was in
session only few minutes.
In the case of the State on the relation OF
John NJ. Carr VS.. the State Auditor, appli-
cation for a writ of mandamus has been
made to compel the Auditor to issue to the
reIator warrants on the Treasurer for the
amount of twenty-six warrants issued by
tie Warrant Clerk of the House of Repre-
.sentatives for contingent expenses OF the
Legislature The total amount of the
twenty-six warrants is $2S732 AZ. The
case is fixed for next Friday.
Francis Xavier Barbot brings suit against
James S. Clark, of this city, wherein he
sets forth that on the twenty-fourth of
April, 1871, he was the owner of five certii-
Gates of stock in the Louisiana Levee Com
pauy said certificates being for the amount
of one hundred shares each, the par value
of each share being one hundred dollars,
said certificates being numbered respec-
lively, l69, 10, III, l72 and l73, the same
being now fully worth the sum of five thou
sand dollars. That petitioner pledged
said certificates to said Clark, to secure the
payment of prOmissory note, dated at that
date and payable sixty days after date, for
five thousand dollars, with eight per cent
per annum interest after maturity.
Petitioner further pledged claim against
the Louisiana Levee Company to said Clark,
TO pay and secure him against any difference
between the value of said stock and the
amount of $685. 49, advanced by said Clark
in money and by Endorsement.
Petitioner further represents that he de-
Gvered said stock TO said Clark, and exc
cuted the pledges hereinabove described
and that at the maturity of said pledge
petitioner was unable to pay said note and
redeem said stock, and that said Clark is
now about Illegally disposing of the same
to the detriment of petitioner.
Wherefore he prays citation OF said
Clark, and that the Civil Sheriff of the
parish of Orleans be ordered to seguester
and take possession of said stock. He fur
'ther prays that the Louisiana Levee Com
pany, Hibernia Bank and said Clark be en-
joined from transferring, parting with or
disposing of said stock or deposit in trust
TOR said Clark.
In the absence of Judge Dibble, Judge
Emerson, Judge of the Third District Court,
ordered the writs to issue.
The following answer was fled by DR..
Ball. of Ball, Lyons & Co., who is sued for
non-payment of his license for the year
1871 as wholesale druggists.
"Now comes the defendant, and for
answer pleads that he owes nothing to the
plaintiff, having already paid the said
license once, and he is unwilling to, and is
advised that he is not liable to pay again;
that having paid promptly and according to
law to the proper officers claiming to col
this second demand for the identical license
if a proper accountability existed, and
proper credits given to parties paying
their licenses; that either the cash of the
State Tax Collector was over the sum paid
by defendant, when balanced, or else he
unintentionaliy failed to make return of
said collection, and in either event re-
spondent is entitled to relief
Wherefore, respondent prays to be hence
dismissed with costs; or in default thereof,
the Tax Collector, Auditor and Treasurer be
called in warranty to defend this suit in
order to show what became of the money
collected from respondent.
Fourth District Court.
Notwithstanding the overpowering heat,
Messrs. Race and Hornor were earnestly
engaged, yesterday forenoon, in arguing the
important case Of Henry Whitaker vs..
Joseph I'll. Wilson.
The store involved in this controversy is
one of the largest and best patronized dry
goods establishments on Canal street.
Plaintiff claims partnership and one-half
the profits accrued since September 1863.
After the argument the case will doubt
less be submitted and decided during the
coming vacation. The evidence and plead
ings are unusually voluminous, the testi-
mony alone filling full two thousand pages,
Originally taken in short hand.
In the rule for new trial IN re A. Glenn
va Thompson & Barnes, after argument by
j. AID. ROzier, Esq. for plaintiff in rule, the
new trial was refused.
The Railroad in Canal Street.
The following is a correct copy of the
opinion lately delivered by Mr.. Justice
Howe, at Opelousas:
This case was before this court lately
on an appeal from judgment in favor
of plaintiff, rendered by the Sixth Dis
trict Court of the parish of Orleans. See
. Ann, p. =. The cause was remanded
that it might be transferred to the Eighth
District Court. Having been thus trans
ferred the Judge of the Eighth Court fol-
lowing the opinion expressed by the Judge
of the Sixth, rendered another Judgment in
favor of plaintiff, enjoinIng the defendants
from constructing horse railroad track on
the edge of the neutral ground, on Canal
street.
A careful examination of the record fails
TO disclose any legal reason for this injunc
ton. The plaintiff has filed no brief in this
court, and we can only presume that he re-
lies on the following points, which we will |
notice in the order in which they are set |
forth in his petition:
1t appears that in the middle of the |
neutral ground in question there is a drain |
ing canal; that this draining canal is covered |
by platform on which, for some years, the |
tracks OF the defendants railway have been |
Laid: that this canal was cleared out by the |
authorities of the city Of New Orleans, and |
the earth thus excavated thrown out and |
Ieveled down on each side in such a way as |
10 form a bank of some fourteen inches in |
thickness, encroaching somewhat on the |
shellroads on either side; that on these |
banks defendants propose to laytheir tracks, |
removing them from over the canal, I'M
der permission given by an ordinance of |
the Common Council, dated Nav 3, 1869, |
and that these banks of earth will, unless |
properly provided with bitches, prevent in |
some measure the flow of surface water |
from the inner edges of the shellroads |
The plaintiff, as owner of property on Canal |
street. claims that he has been greatly in |
iured by the announced intention of the !
defendants thus to remove their tracks, |
and that the laying thereof on the newly |
selected lines will work him an irreparable
injury; and hence his claim for perpetual
Injunction.
|. The excavation of the draining canal
che throwing up of earth on either side
upon the neutral ground, and the possible
distractions of drainage of shellrOads were
all the work of the city of New Orleans
The defendants had nothing to do with
these facts. and are in no wise responsible
for the real or imaginary consequences of
them. The city Is not a party to the suit
and it is not necessary, therefore, to decide
how far the plaintiff might have a right to
interfere with Its administration of the pub
lie highways on which he chooses to buy
land. 1t is enough to say that neither the
plans nor performances of the defendants
have caused or are likely to cause any in
jury to the plaintiff, which can authorize
the stringent remedy of injunction as against
them.
Q. The plaintiff alleges that the ordinance