New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-26
THE COURTS.
United State..Circuit Ceur,.

-Hee United states Circuit Court. -'Has
In the case of Il. Piaggio VS.. New Orleans
Insurance Association, on motion of counsel
for defendants, it was ordered that plaintiff
show cause on the thirtieth instant. al
eleven o'clock A. NJ, why the verdict of the
jury should not be set aside and a new trial
granted on the grounds filed. .
In the case of A. b. Belknap, executor
VS.. A. Pluche d Co., the exception made by
the defendants was sustained, and the
plaintiffs suit dismissed with costs.
In the case of the city of, New Orleans vs.
the New York Mail Steamship Company
and s. B. Packard, United States Marshal.
the application for an injunction in this
ease wherein the city attempts to enioin the
marshal from collecting a Judgment OBJ
tanned by said steamship Company against
the city in former suit instituted in this
court, was, for reasons orally assigned, de-
MED by the court -
Eighth District Court-Refusal of IDjunc-
tiOns Against the Slaughterhouse Conn
pany.
In the case of S. B. Prattvs the Crescent
City Live Stock Landing and Slaughter
house Company, Judge Dibble yesterday
morning delivered an opinion refusing the
writ of injunction prayed for. He sets out
by stating that the plaintiff AYERS that he is
the owner of five shares of the stock of this
administration which, he alleges, are calcu-
lated to work irreparable injury to the cor
poratlOn and to him as stakeholder, and
to render the company liable to the forfeit
ure of its charter. The defendant was
ruled to show cause why preliminary in
junction should not be granted.
Without reviewing all of the avernents
OF the petition, it is enough to state the
issue: whether the Crescent City Live
I Il. ~
pany can erect and maintain more than one
slaughterhouse under the provisions of the
act approved March 8, 1869, or whether the
company is bound to require all slaughter
ing and landing of stock to be done at the
grand slaughterhouse, which was erected
before June l, 1869, in accordance with the
requirements of the third section of that
law
The history of the organization and the
purposes of the creation of the corporation
now sued are fully stated in the case of
Estate ex rel the Attorney General VS..
Pagan ct ais" For years the butchers of
New Orleans had detied public opinion and
the express provisions of laws and or
dlnances relative to the locality of the
slaughterhouses. They had persisted in
butchering in the upper portion of the CITY
and In throwing otfal into the river, to be
carried past the city, endangering the
hcditu CoulOrt Oh lUs D1naDltdntS.
The Legislature, therefore. did wise and
practical thing; the corporation defendant
was created; all persons were forbidden to
slaughter above a certain point on the
river, and the company was given the ex-
elusive privilege of erecting slaughter
houses and stock landings below that point.
Such company, with such large interests
involved, became powerful and strong
enough to throttle the butchers The
Ind hat
had failed to do; they forced all butcherirg
and stock landing below the city, and insti.
tuted a thorough system of inspection in
obedience to the provisions of the law afore-
said.
The third section of the act required the
company TO erect, at its own expense, stock
yards and grand slaughterhOuse of sutfi-
Gent capacity to accommodate all butchers.
and at some point below the city line desig- |
mated on the river. These accommoda- |
tons were to be completed on or before |
June |, 1862
The plaintiff now urges that the COM
pany, having chosen its site, and having
erected Its grand slaughterhouse to the |
satisfaction OF the State, as shown by the
litigation above referred to, no other
can be erected by the com
1any, and the present one can not be re-
moved
He complains that the directors have. at
sreat expense, purchased another proDerty
m the other bank of the river. where tbey
propose to maintain another slaughterhouse
M other stock landings; that this pur-
hase was unnecessary and injurious to the
company, and that the establishment of an
additional slaughterhouse OF the removal
4 the present one will render the companv
able to the forfeiture of its charter:
therefore, as a stakeholder he maintains
ms actlon. asking that the purchase of
he property aforesaid be declared null. |
nd he prays for an injunction to prevent
ne establishment of an additional
aughterhouse or the removal of the
ne hrst erected. If the act charteripg
ne company enjoined it to establish and
lalntaln but one grand slaughterhouse and
,ock landing, and if the directors should
tempt to violate this charter in that re-
Dect, an individual stakeholder would per
APPS nave the right to obtain writ of in a
lnctlon against the act or acts But in this a
w find no such provision. 1t is true that
he act required the erection of grand q
aughterhouse before a certain date. when t
le butcherlng was to cease above the city.
But the act nowhere SAYS that such +
aughterhouse shall be maintained during i
e period OF the charter and shall be the p
lIy place at which slaughtering shall be
me. On the contrary, section four of the i
!
operation is hereby authorized to erect, at o
own expense, one or more landing places :
live stock as aforesaid, at any points or a
aces consistent with the provisions of this t
I, and to have and enjoy from the compile e
N thereof and after the first day of June, a
%, the exclusive privilege of having s
nded at their wharves and landing places o.
ANIMALS intended for sale or slaughter
the parishes of Orleans and Jefferson.
q are hereby authorized lin connecticut
erect, at lheir sole expense, one or more | -
at any points or places con- L
tent with the provisions of this act. and
nave and enjoy from the completion I
ereof, etc. i
The law is sanctional by it's renalties for re
ughtering above the points unon the Il,
er designated as the limit. and for ell
ugbtering in other than slaughterhouses he
the company below the limits. 81 81
t seems to me that when the corporation ~
| forced those engaged in landing stock br
! IN slaughtering animals to remove be- tn
' the city, and had instituted the system P PG
Inspection required by the law, that the stl
was complied with. The company te
'uld be and is reaping its reward. The A.
Tor the erection of a grand vi
ushterhouse before the first of June, pa
., was an incident of the means and
thod Tor carrying out the more important
lures of the act
ne law sad to the company: Build -
nd slaughterhouse, suitable for the ac- w
of five hundred butchers.
hin ninety days. Compel these recall, II
ant butchers to remove from the upper IL
t of the city, and you may then build as De
ny slaughterhouses as you choose below a a.,
points designated, and have the excn- CHI
; right to have all butchering done no
rein for the period Of your charter" on
he allegations of complaint disclose no 10.
dlloh ol lne CHARTER Inc VIII OF in Fir
will fhapntnpa 40 Taftr |