New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-06-16

| Plaintiffs bring action to have Dne con
tract and ordinance under which it was
made declared null, alleging that the ordi-
nance is unconstitutional, because the tax
thereby imposed is not uniform, and that
| the work is injurious to the property; to-
j gether with other reasons.
! But they abandon these grounds and rest
their complaint on section 1l9 of the city
charter of 1856, under which the contract
was awarded. The section in question pro-
vides that "one-fourth of the front prOprie-
tors on any street may petition for the she'll
ing and grading of any portion thereof, and
that if one-half of front proprietors do not
object, the city shall order the, work to be
done at the expense Of the front propre-
tors"
Plaintiffs insist that the meaning of the
section is, that the petition must be signed
by one-fourth of the front prOprietOrs on
the whole street, and that property holders
on that portion of the street requiring she'll
ing, etc, have no power to require the work.
do not think this is the correct meaning
of the language of section ll9. 1t provides
that front proprietors may petition for the
| shelling and grading of a portion of the
street, and then says, if one-half of front
proprietors do not object, the work shall be
done.
The reading of this section conveys to my
mind the idea that it was intended to au-
| thorize such petition, to be addressed
either by persons fronting on the whole
length OF the street, or by persons fronting
on the portion to be improved. And such
| is the opinion of the Supreme Court in the
| case of Mckee, for the use of, VS.. w. HI.
| Brown (recently decided) in which is in
volved the construction of the charter of
the late City of jefferson. The court held
| that under the charter of the City of Jeffer-
son, persons fronting on a portion of street
could not petition for improvements, but
| that owners upon the whole length must
sign. In that case, however, the court re-
| marked, the charter of the city of New Or
I leans made use of different language. (See
section 49, city charter, 1856
| The charter of 1S0,has similar provisions.
| There is no reason why this different
| power should not be conferred on the city
| Of New Orleans. The facts seem to justify
this opinion, and it is clearly the opinion of
| the Supreme Court expressed in the above
decision, that the charter of the city of
New Orleans did authorize petition to be
addressed by proprietors fronting on por-
ton Of the street, and authorizes the city to
make a contract in accordance with the
petition. '- 'o1'~s.>'s-' ~ Hfif'f
The defendant, O'Hara, is made party
to the suit, reconvenes and claims amount
due him for work done under the contract.
There is no dispute as to the correctness of
his claim. '7-.aS- 9rTI .EuTaE- Pr
The Judgment will be, dismissing the &C
ton of the plaintiffs, and in favor of
O'Hara, on unconventional demand against
the several plaintiffs. ra...-
New Orleans Republican Printing Com.
pany VS.. City of New Orleans. ct ais.
On motion Of George S. Lacey, City At
torney, and upon suggesting that the in
junction herein granted is a great incon-
venience to the city, and prevents her
from exercising her legal rights, and upon
further suggesting to the court that the
acts complained of by plaintiffs in their
petition for an injunction are not of such
character as will work an irreparable
injury to said plaintiffs, and upon further
suggesting that the city of New Orleans
is dispensed in all cases from giving bond
and security, it was ordered that plaintiffs
show, cause, on the twenty first of June,
at 10 A, NJ, why the injunction herein is
sued should not be set aside under article
307 Code of Practice, without giving bond
and security, the said city being bound to
pay all such damages as the plaintiffs in
Injunction may have sustained, if definl-
tive judgment be rendered against her in
this suit. ..-.. .
Sixth District Court-Judge Cooley Dis.
regards the Re-appointment of Re-
corder HoughtOn by Governor War.
In the case of Atwell, charged with being
a fugitive from justice from Kentucky Judge
Cooley this morning discharged the pris-
Oner upon the ground that j. P. HOughton
is not the Recorder of the First District,
and that whether we regard the decision of
the Sixth District Court or Houghtons res
ignation. he was ont of office; that the city
charter made ample provisions as to how
the Office should be filed.
nd ctr tod 70 al vol Eia11 {ha
counsel for the prisoner, that it was unnec-
essary to consider the various points raised
by him. as he did not regard any commit
ment signed by him as worth the paper on
which it is written. '
In the case of Ann Ryan and Mary Ann
Haley, her daughter, VS.. the Septoline Oil
Company, suing for $4,000 damages for in
juries caused by an oil explosion. the jury
has returned a verdict awarding Mary Ann
Haley $1,000 and Ann Ryan $3.50.
Fourth District Court
In the suit of John C. Golding vs. John
P. Casey, the jury has returned verdict in
favor of defendant.
The jury also found verdict in the case
of Charles ID. Everett VS.. Robert Stewart
Deance, in favor of plaintiff for the amount
of $500, with interest.
On Saturday. the twenty fourth instant,
cases will be called in this court for the
first two weeks in November.
United States Circuit Court-Hon. E. III.
Durell. District Judge. Presiding.
In the case of Sumner, Hughes g. Val
lette VS.. Holdane & Co. ct al. it was Or
dered that the sum in controversy,
S1l ,Sl7 81, deposited in the Bank of
America to the credit of r. Wells, syndic
of the creditors of the Belleville
Iron Works Company, and de-
scribed in complainants' bill of complaint,
is subject to the complainants' privilege as
lessons, and of right belonged to complain
ants, and should be paid to them as lessons
of the Belleville Iron Works mentioned in
said bill; and it appearing that the fund,
under the order of this court, has been in
vested in five-twenty bonds of the United
States bearing interest in gold, and that the
same bonds are on deposit in the Louisiana
National Bank to abide the decree of this
court, it is further ordered that said FIVE
twenty bonds, amounting to Sl0,SO0, and
resulting from the conversion of said fund,
as well as any surplus or fraction thereof
as may not have been so converted, be paid
over and delivered to the compliments;
that the defendants, HOldane e. Co. and
James Jeffries be and they are perpetually
enjoined from asserting any claim to said
fund, and that they pay all the costs of this
suit.
In the case of James E. Durham VS..
John Spicer, on motion of counsel for the
plaintiff, and on suggesting to the court
that the sum of $l7 1913 SO was deposited in
the registry of this court, namely, the
Nj l. 1f 81 np1