New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-17
THE COUNTS.
United States District Court-In Bank
ruDtcys r-4z

THE COUAV9s
United States District Court-In Bank
t~. ruDtcy. LL.
In the matter of Oscar Lanaux q rule is
taken on E. +. Norton, assignee, returnable
on the twenty fifth, to show cause why the
order appointing him assignee should not
be set aside, and Mr.. Leblanc be declared
the legally chosen assignee.
United States District Court-In Admi-
rally.
H. D. Ogden, Esq. was admitted to prac-
tice.
The suit in which Brandies & Crawford
are defendants finished another length yes
terday, and was then continued until to-day.
United states Circuit Court.
G.. A. Lally VS.. Edgar Marin; order of
seizure and sale made tinal the writ of sale
auashed as prematurely issued. Opposition
70 defendant dismissed, and the order of
circuit formerly issued reinstated to operate
IA a supersedeas, which carries the matter
to the Supreme Court
Time to advise was taken in the suits of
the insurance companies against S. A. Stock
dale, as internal revenue collector.
In the case of Louisa Lowell, administra-
trix, rule was was taken on the defend
ant to show cause why the writ of error
should not be refused.
Second District Court.
The will of the late Herman Rice has been
admitted to probate in this court. The in
strument is dated May IS, 1866, and by it
the testatOr bequeaths to his wife, Barbara
Julia Wetzel, all the property OF which he
died possessed, and appoints her tesla
mentary executor. a..
The last will and tetament of the late
Abraham Fl. D'Meza has also been pro-
bated 1t is dated August %, 1869, and
To 4 oil or
personal estate, appointing his wife ZephOra
and Jacob OsOriO de Castro testamentary
executors.
Eighth District Court.
The following decisions were yesterday
rendered by Judge Dibble:
Mrs. Margaret Ahrens VS.. Casper Weiss
ct al. In this case a new trial has been
refused.
State of Louisiana OK rel John Klein VS..
James Graham.-1n this case. the per-
emptOry writ Of mandamus is refused.
Judge Dibble, among other reasonings,
says: The question to be decided now is
whether the Auditor can be compelled to
warrant upon this appropriation for the
current year tor the payment OF that de-
felt reputed to the Assembly, and for
which an appropriation was not madel l
think not.
The history of the government has inva-
riably been to pay such claims only upon
specific appropriations or under provisions
made for funding the debt. To allow the
floating debt to be paid out OF the appro-
priatiOns made for meeting the annual
budget would tend to confuse the whole
finances Of the State, and, indeed, the pro.
ceedngs of the Legislature at the last SEES
sion evidenced that it was their intention,
aud they did make provisions for such
claims as that held by the relator. A bil2
was passed providing for funding the float
ing debt, and it is plain by that fact that
no specific appropriation was made for the
payment of this and similar claims, but that
the funding bill was passed to provide for
such claims.
A. z. Billings vs.. William Weber.-A mo-
ton for new trial has been made III this
case upon the ground that the Judgment
rendered was contrary to the law and the
evidence.
The plaintiff, holding the Office of recorder
Of the Fourth District. had been adiudged
on the relation Of Weber against him to be
into and unlawtully holding the
said office.
The petition in this case represented that,
subsequent to the judgment in the aforesaid
suit, the said Office had been declared vacant
by competent authority, and that he had
been appointed thereto. He represented
that he feared that the defendant, Weber,
in whose favor the Judgment in the other
suit runs, was about to take forcible posses
sion Of the Office, and, therefore. this plain
tiff sought to restrain him by the writ Of in
junction.
After trying a rule nisi, decided that
the writ Of injunction ought not to issue,
because the law known as the intrusion in
office act provides special and summary
method for the trial of all contests for pub
lie office, and the writ of injunction will not
lie to prevent the intrusion into a public
office.
The plaintiff now insists upon this mo-
ion for new trial, that the intrusion in
office act does not provide remedy in the
premises, but only cOntemplates an action
against q person actually iDtruding into
and holding public office unlawfully.
An examination of the statute satisfies
ne that an action can be maintained under
t by person holding an Office against one
setting up title thereto, and seeking to
possession of that office. The object of the
statute was to enforce a summary and
Elective form of action for deciding all
contests between individuals for the pos
essiOn Of public office. 1t was intended
hat all such contests should be tried under /
his act.
1t seems to me we'll settled that the eqnit- !
lble writ Of injunction can not be used for !
he termination of such issues. Perhaps |.
N injunction might issue as an auxiliary |
emedy in suit under the intrusion in |
'ffice act, when, as is represented in this !
ase, person is seeking to GUST another, |
,ut an Injunction sGit as such is not the !
tmedy. Let the rule for new trial be dis |
harged.
State ex rel F. C. Mahan va. A. Dubuclet,
state Treasurer.-This was an application |
or the writ of mandamus to compel the !
state Treasurer to pay thirteen warrants !
eld by the relator. The attorney an |
wered that at the time relatOr made his |
lemand there was no money III the State |
reasury.
In refusing the writ, the court said: In |
rider to obtain the writ of mandamus to |
ompel disburslng officer to pay warrant |
/ is necessary to establish three things, viz: |
hat the relator has the warrant: that he !
resented it to the treasurer and was re- |
used, and that there was money in the |
reasury at that time. The evidence shows |
hat there was no money in the treasury at !
he time relator made the demand, and, |
therefore,, the writ was refused.
meteorological and River Report. /
The signal service, United States army, |