New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-01-28
THE COURTS.


| ting in bankruptcy, the petition OF NJ. 5.
Hedrick to force the Bulletin Company INTO
bankruptcy, came up.
The Bulletin Company undertook in
March last to pay NJ. S. Hedrick the sum of
$4,000, then due by Seymour. Jewell & Co.,
in part payment Of the price OF certain
newspaper paraphernalia, on which petit
toner had a vendors lien. Within the
next six months the company, it is set up
by petitioner, committed an act OF bank
ruptcy by making over to f. Blessey. and
other Of its creditors, payments amounting
to over $4,000, with intent to give a
preference to Bessey. Wherefore the
prayer is that the Bulletin Company be de-
clared a bankrupt.
The case was continued to be tried by a
Jury on the second of February, 1872.
The rule by A. S. Mansfield taken on the
twenty third of December, in bankruptcy,
was yesterday dismissed.
The balance of proceeds in the registry
resulting from the sale of the Lizzie Bell, in
admiralty process, was ordered to be paid
over to Mrs. Elizabeth Stewart, creditor
to the amount of 1863 80.
In the Sixth District Court number of
suits, about forty in all, have been brought
by as many cotfee-house keepers against
the city Of New Orleans for recovery of
licenses paid by each under ordinances of
the city and held by the Supreme Court to
be unconstitutional. There is no telling
where this will end. There are licenses
handed in for the years 1869, 1870 and 1871,
and the amounts paid. if all contested, will
count up millions, and If unconstitutional
and void in one case. the same reasoning
would make them null in all As these ac-
tiOns do not involve an amount equal to five
hundred dollars, they are of course unap-
pealable; and, as the policy Of the Sixth
District Court is well known, several deci-
sions having already been given against the
city under similar circumstances, there is
no doubt as to the nature of the Judgment
in each case.
In one of the suits brought by the Slidell
heirs for recovery of the property sold
under cOnfiscatiOn, it is alleged, by the
way of exception, that the Fourth District
Court has no jurisdiction rationP materiG
to determine the merits of the case. Infer
entially it is held that the federal courts
only have jurisdiction in the premises. This
issue will be tried next week.
Jury cases will occupy the Sixth District
Court ON Monday.
In the case OF Weber against Billings,
the defendant has moved for new trial,
on the ground, among others usually cited
in such cases, that Weber failed to show he
qualified according to law; that his testi-
mony as to special facts was contradicted
and in regard to general facts impeached:
that Weber cOnversed with certain mem
bers of the jury during the trial of the
cause. The motion will be tried on Friday
next
Philip Tidou has brought suit in the Fifth
District Court against the New Orleans,
Jackson and Great Northern railroad for
$50 for this:
That on the twenty-frst of March,
1871. the passenger train coming toward the
city, in charge of conductor or other
agent of the corporation, did. at or near the
one-mile post. maliciOusly or negligently
kill a milk COW, the property of petitioner,
who is dairyman by occupation; that the
COW was valuable animal then with
calf, and fully worth $50.
The petitioner AYERS that his COW was
killed either through the intent of the
agents of said company, or through the neg
ligent and careless manner in which the
trains are run, especially in the neighbor
hood of New Orleans; that the company
have not taken the necessary precaution to
protect the lives and property of the resi-
dents along its line.
The suit against Thomas Mcknight by
the city. in the Eighth District Court, is for
an Injunction to restrain the defendant
from taking water from any fire plugs con-
nected with petitioners Waterworks. or
from the pipes or hydrants, or any part or
portion of the Waterworks established in
the city of New Orleans, and belonging to
or under the control of petitioner; and that
he he further enjoined from doing any act
or interfering with the ownership, posses
sion. exclusive enjoyment. management and
control of said Waterworks, etc.
All Of which, it is alleged in the petition,
defendant has done without any right OR
color or shadow of right in law or equity, to
the advancement OF his own individual
gain
Petitioner further prays that upon the
trial OF this suit the aforesaid writ of injunc-
ton may be made perpetual, and a judg-
dered against the said defendant, that peti
toner may recover cost and have general
relief in the premises.
1t was ordered by the court that defend
ant show cause. on Friday, February2, 2, why
an Injunction should not issue as prayed
for.