New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-16
NEW THE COURTS.



.4ure gierick Cook and j. S. McCOmb VS.
rev Stewart, ct als.-The motion to
solve the injunction was argued to the
I'd yesterday, and resulted in a judgment
denying the motion.
c. G. johnson VS.. Henry Fassman, ct
als.-The injunction issued in this chancery
suit is made perpetual, and complainant re-
covers $4,000 damages.
w. g. Crane and w. r. White were ap-
pointed United States commissioners.
q. A. Lally VS.. Marin, ct als.-Submitted
to the district judge.
Eliza d. Nathan VS.. Daniel Hickey-On
appeal. This case was submitted
James NJ. Barklay VS.. Board of Levee
Commh sioners.-Default reinstated.
Fourth District Court.
State of Louisiana VS.. W. Fl. Letehford g.
Co.-Theard, j. This suit is brought by the
State of Louisiana to recover the amount of
One-quarter of one per cent on the gross
sales realized by the defendants bv virtue
of tax imposed under the third section of
act No SIS of 1865, entitled "An act to in
crease the revenue of the State and raise
means to pay the interest of the State debt. y
The defendants refuse payment on the
grOund that the tax is illegal, unequal and
not uniform, as required by article l24 of
the constitution OF 1864, and that the law
imposing it Is, therefore, unconstitutional
think the defendants are right.
The third section Of the law Of 1865 reads
as follows: There shall be assessed and
collected the sum of One-quarter of one per
cent on the annual gross sales or receiDts of
each and every person pursuing any trade,
profession OF occupation, whose annual re-
ceipts exceed the sum of $1,000"
Now, by section one of the same act. a
license is collected from every person pur-
suing any trade.
SO that the uniformity required by article
ia Of the constitution of 1864 does not
exist; for it is obvious that after paying a
license which is uniform, our merchants are
called upon TO pay tax which makes
discrimination between them. Those whose
gross sales do not exceed $1,000 paw nothing:
those whose receipts are larger are taxea.
This distinction is clearly repugnant to the
provisions of the constitution.
But the learned counsel for the State saw
that the tax is uniform, because all per
sons keeping goods for sale enjoy equally
an exemption from the tax on the gross
sales to the extent of $4,000, and are equally
taxed for any excess over that amount.
The reasoning is clearly erroneous. The
distinction, on the contrary, is still more
than one would at first suppose. For if A
sells for $1,000 he pays nothing; whereas, if
- sells for $2OOl he pays on the whole of
that amount 1t might be commended, with
an appearance Of reason, that the law would
be valid If b was only taxed ON 81, that is
to say, above the $1,000 Then the exemp-
ton of $4,000 would have been uniform.
But it is not so, and even if it were the
act would still be unconstitutional because
1t imposes license and tax on some, and
a license only on others, although engaged
IN the same trade or occupation.
For these reasons let there be Judgment
for the defendants.
Fifth District Court.
The city of New Orleans has entered
suit in this court against Charles H. Waldo,
district wharhnger, assigned to the First
District thereof, and his securities. Edward
Conery, NJ. d. Lagan and James MackisOn.
Petitioner alleges that while said Waldo
was acting as wharfnger, between April 25
1870, and June 10. 1871, he collected from
sea-gOing and river steamers, and other
vessels not less than the sum of $l6O, 092 Is:
that he has accounted for and paid over to
petitioner the sum of $l55,7 36 Is, leaving in
the hands of Waldo, unaccOunted for and
not paid over, moneys collected amounting
to the sum of $4355 97-hence this action
A similar suit has been instituted by the
city against John @. Chad wick, wharfinger
TO the Fourth District thereof and his Sc
curities, George Benson, f. w. Perkins and
James b. Guthrie, for the sum of Sl7lO 81
with interest. This amount was collected
by Chadwick, as wharfnger, and is unac.
counted for.
Sixth District Court.
Paul Lanning has sued Charles Case for
damages alleged to be caused by the de-
PENDANT having wrOngfully, illegally, ma
iciOusly, etc, obtained writ of arrest and
caused the petitioner to be taken into Gus
tOdy by the Civil Sheriff of the parish of
Orleans. T. c. McQuigg, having signed the
bond for the defendant Case, is sued in
solidO with him.
In the case of the Mississippi Valley
Transportation Company VS.. George A.
FOsdick a. Co., a rule was taken TO set aside
a writ of sequestratiOn obtained by the
plaintiff against barge and quantity of
lumber, the court held that the only cues
ton was in relation to whether the plaintiff |
had privilege on the property seduestered !
or not, and that the plaintiff having failed !