New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-28
THE COURTS.
United states Circuit Court.

! United States Circuit Court.
In the case Of John Thompson against H
Rass. plaintiff is to show cause on the fonrtl
OF April why new trial should not bt
| granted.
| Judgment Of the District Court in the cast
!, OF Henry Tricon against the sreamer Irene
was affirmed, and plaintiff recove: s 500, with
! interest.
| Supreme Court.
In the case of the appeal by l.. }. Kennedy
| and b. w. Sewall from the verdict OF jury
| against them in a suit where they were sued
| that a certain transfer OF 455 acres of land
| might be annulled, the court ruled, in sub
stance, as follows:
The defendant excerpts to the ruling of the
court in admitting parole evidence to estab-
lish the allegations of plaintiff on the ground
that a sale, or the agreement tor the sale
OF immovables can not he proved by pa
role" There is no force in the bill Of ex-
ceptions. The suit is not to enforce the
verbal agreement for the several transfers
of the property in question ii is simply an
action to annul the re-transfer obtained by
tie defendants from the plaintiff ON the
ground of the fraud and colluslon practced
by them in getting it.
If the plaintiff parted with his property
on the fraudulent representations of the
defendants, as he alleges. it is certainly
ceIVed to prove it.
As to the objection that because the de-
PENDANTS were examined Rs witnesses by the
plaintiff, their answers can not be contra
dcted by other evidence in his behalf we
will remark there is no force in it. Under
the law allowing parties having pecuniary
interest to testify, their testimony can be
contradicted by the opposite party the same
as that of any other witness called in the
case. Judgment affirmed.
Fourth District Court.
In the case of the State against G. Cast,
a suit brought by the Attorney General to
recover the tax due the State, ii was set up
that the court had nc jurisdiction in the
case. it being less than $l0O, which excep-
ton the Judge ruled had been passed upon
by the Supreme Court finally. (22 A. 567).
Upon the ground that the tax law en-
croached upon another branch of the Judi
ciary, Judge Theard pronounced further
that the jurisdiction was left to the Lesisla-
ture who had right to determine it hence
the section of the revenue law under which
the Attorney General acted held good, and
is not unconstitutional. The ground that
the tax law, clothing the court with the
jurisdiction in question, did not express the
objects in the title. and hence was unconsti-
tutional, was disposed OF as follows:
The act under which the Attorney Gen
eral Is acting is entitled - An act to provide
IA revenue. to levy and collect taxes, etc"
This suit has no other object but to enforce
the collection of the tax due by the defend
ant II is detail of the necessary steps to
be taken by the State officers to attain the
object of the law, which is the collection of
taxes.
The title OF an act can not enumerate each
and every item of its provisions 1t is suf-
tcient that the objects of the law be ex-
pressed in its title. The right to sue flows
from the right TO collect, which is stated in
the title OF the act. The section complained
OF is. consequently, not in conflict.
Judge Cooley. in the case No. 3574 of the
Eighth District Court. has clearly demon,
stra.ed that justices of the peace have no
jurisdiction Bestowed upon them by the
and Judge Dibble has repeat
eGly Overruled the exceptions to the iuris-
diction of his court in State suits under
$l00
And, lastly. there is no equity at all in
the exceptions filed, FOR neither the State
nor the taxpayers would be benefited bv
the maintenance of the exceptions. \
change of tribunal would neither Discharge
the debts of the latter nor dispense them |
from paying the new costs necessary to |
enforce the payment of the taxes. The |
costs already incurred in this court, in obe. |
dIeuce 20 a statute of the Legislature are |
due by the State. in case of failure to re-
cover them from the taxpayers. A trans
fer of these tax suits would. therefore be |
detrimental Doth to the State and TO the |
taxpayers.
For these reasons, let the exceptions be |
Dverruled.
sixth District Court.
In a rllle taken TN the city of New Or
eans by the defendant in a tax Judgment.
,e e1,cr L i
1Ot be decreed satisfied on payment of the
ace of the tax bill sued on, it was held by
.he court that the delay of one year granted
% defendant to pay taxes of the wears 1861,
S62, 1863 and 1864, without interest and
penalties, did not intend that after the ex-
)iratiOn of the year the interest and penal.
lies should be charged to the defendants,
)lt that the remission was absolute. and
hat the delay Of one year was simply
tay of execution for that time.
In answer to the rule taken bv S. W.
scott upon him for contempt, General
-ongstreet appeared in court and testified
hat the gun was not in his possession, nor
lad ii been when the writ of seuueStration
vas served upon him. he not being able to
leliver up what he had not in his hands.
Judge Cooley decided in case of the city
# New Orleans VS.. Dupas. This was suit
o recover for taxes on property in 1867 and
Osts Ill the case. inasmuch as the amount
ad not bee n paid at the time required by
be act of 1870 December 81, 1871. Defend
Mt holding that the remission OF costs and
lterest provided for in said act was uncon-
itional and not limited by time, made a
ender OF the original amount. ANA upon its
etusal by the city took e rule to show canse
Thy the amount should be declared in salts
action of the claim.
na |
he only point to be considered is, whether
he act OF 1870 relieves taxpayers from the
aymert OF costs and interest, alleged 10 be
oHsequcnt On the non-payurnt of taxes
'ithin twelve months after the passage of
he act.
The language of the Legislature was
videDt!y to afford relief, inasmuch as the |
ct was intended as a postponement of the
election OF taxes levied upon the value of
assessed in 1861, 10, '63 and "a.
he preamble itself is explanatory of the
bject OF the Legislature where reference is
lade to the back taxes levied on property
1861, '62, etc. but which in 1870 had
realty deprecated in value There seems
} have been a motive in making this re-
lissiOn, inasmucL as the taxes on the valu-
ton of property assessed in 1861, 62, etc,
ould be bnrdensOme to taxpayers, and,
it was to relieve the tax
ayers of burden that the act was framed
The considerations in the act of 1867 |
ere similar to the act Of 1870, except that
le clause referring to the twelve months
ay was in the form of a prOviso, while in
re act of 1870, although not prOviso, it
as in the same language. We must pre-
lme that in framing the act of 1870 the
w makers had in view the act Of 1857. and
lrthermore. | come to the conclusion that
le act of 1870 makes the remission uncon- I
itiunai The rule must be made absolute. ,