New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-10
THE COL KTs.
United STATES District COuri-In Admi
rally.

Grande.-The libel in this case was dis
missed The facts are as follows
In 1867 libelants filed their libels
against the Rio Grande, in the District
Court of the United States for the Southern
District of Alabama. The owners and
parties i'll interest appeared. and contested
On hearing, the court dismissed the petl-
tons. The owners then moved the court
for an order, directing the marshal OF that
district to restore the vessel to them. The
libelants allowed the order, which was
granted by the court. to be executed with
out objection, but subsequently filed their
appeal bonds for an appeal to the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Southern
district of Alabama. After u long delay,
about two years, the case was heard, aud
reversed the judgment Of the District
Court, and condemned the vesse. to be sold
to satisfy libelants' claims.
The libel in the present case is based on
this decree OF the Circuit Court The Ocean
TowbOat Company of this city appeared
claimed the Rio Grande as their property,
they having purchased her in good faith, at
ter she had been restored to her owners as
above stated, and opposed the decree of CON
domination pronounced against her by the
Circuit Court. The main ground urged by
the Ocean TowbOat Company Is, that the
Rio Grande having been restored to her
owners by an order of the District Court OF
the United States for the Southern District
of Alabama. without objection, and prior to
the appeal taken from the final decree, both
the district and circuit courts were Invested
of further jurisdiction Of the cause, and
that consequently the decree OF the Circuit
Court in voked by the libelants must be held
to be null and void, for want of jurisdiction.
Other points urged by the Ocean Towboat
Company were considered by Judge Durell,
but the ground Of jurisdiction stated above
controlled the case against Ebelants.
The application TO reduce the release
bond in the suit of Pars g love against the
Juniata was refused.
Parties interested in the suit of Bussey
& Co. against the Colossal are to show
cause on Saturday. the thirteenth instant,
who the proceeds should not be distributed
in accordance with the commissioners re-
port.
In the case Of the Merchants Mutual In
surance Company against the steamer
Sabine. the intervenors hereinafter named
are decrced to receive the following sums:
Darby Trunnell, first mate, S52o: Daniel
o. Harkins, second clerk, SS5; Thomas j.
HARRISON pilot, S6i 67 James Levi. clerk.
So 50; William Holdsclaw, engineer.
S57 30: W. Eusminger, pilot. $40; Edward
Timon. deck hand, So 50; Thomas Fagit
carpenter. $40; John Douglas, Waterman,
sd; Phil Davis. cabin boy, SO
The claims are to be paid at once from
the registry. The claims Of the furniShers
of the steamer were referred for report 10
Commissioner Shannon. The proceeds of
the sale OF the Sabine, as far as the claims
OF the sailors are concerned. are to remain
in the registry until the final decision OF
of the court: the mortgage creditors are to
show cause on the thirteenth instant why
the mortgage Judgment should not be set
aside ana the decree be SO amended as 70
recognize the privileged claim of the sal
wage company which rescued the wreck.
United states Circuit Court.
In the case of the United States against
+. j. Heron. plaintiff, being aggrieved by
the final judgment in favor of defendant,
applied for wit Of error to the Supreme
Court OF the United States. The final iuGg-
ment to which allusion is made was in favor
of Heron and against the defendants,
William Z. Fulhanl. John {. Elstner, in
solido for $50, GC0 with FIVE per cent interest
from sixteenth April until paid, The obi
cation 81 gned was in surety to Louis b. Col
Inns, revenue collector, who, it is alleged.
did not account for nor pay to the United
States public moneys.
Judgment by default has been entered
a oainst William l.. Miles, defendant i'll the
suit of Bette against him.
The sum of 1920. attached under garnish
ment. is TO be restored to defendant in the
suit of McGehee SIowden against Violet
< Go.
Fourth District Court.
Mrs. Elizabeth Stuart VS.. Sam. T. Ber-
tron ct ai.-This is suit to recover from
the defendants $4,000 damages for an
illegal seizure of the property OF plaintiff
under tieri facias from the Sixth District
Court in the case of Sam. X. Bertron VS..
William r. Stuart and J. Il. Powell.
To the demand Of plaintiff the defend
ants have opposed plea to the jurisdiction
of the court on the ground that the subject
matter OF the present suit grows out of the
litigation and Judgment rendered in the
Sixth District Court, and that consequently
this court is without jurisdiction in this
case, Judge Theard reaches the following
The object Of tie statute Of 1870, relied
upon, is to prevent conflict of jurisdiction
between the several courts. This law is
wise one; if the present suit is in any way
connected with the Judgment in the Sixth
District Court, or if it grows out of its
Judgment. then the exception should be
sustained. But il does not. The parties to
The two suits are not the same.
This suit is an action of tort against the |
selling creditor and Sheriff. as wrong doors. |
n Illegally Selling plaintiffs property and
.respass UIfOn her property, and into the |
'eclusiOn OF her private sleeping room. This |
suit is based on az Illegal act, committed to |
he injury and damage Of plaintiff. The
sixth District Court has no more jurisdic- |
ion of this claim than any other court of |
concurrent jurisdiction, the plaintiff not |
having been party be fore that court The |
Sheriff may be sued in any other court Tor
damages for wrongfully executing process.
This suit is an action claiming damages for
n Illegal act. over which the district courts |
rave concurrent Jurisdiction, and the
,laintiff may select her court
Act No. s. of 1870 in no manner conflicts
nth the settled jurisprudence Of the State
s found lail down in these authorities.
his law has nothing to do with the action
efore this court, instituted by third per
on not party to the original suit. on a tort
or damages. forming no part OF ner arising
ut of the action III the Sixth District Court.
he settled jurisprudence Of tie State is in
. manner affected by the act. and this
curt has the jurisdiction which plaintiff las
hOsen and sought,
The exception is, therefore, ov3rrulrd
sixth E3i.trict Comri.
Felix BordeDava vs.. City OF New Orleans
: ai.-Forty three mich COWS belonging 10
ne piaintlh, a daiTTman IN the Fish Di.-
'ict, We're lnp0uDdcd. and while confined
'Ito and hiirt each other so that plaintiff
uHered damage, as he claimed, to the
mount OF $1,000. The court said that the
's'imony showed that The pen in which the
at'ie We're confined was not intended to
s"p more than ten or fifteen. and suc!, q
a - nNinbrr as forty had, consequently.
~ >"'ncient space to move about IN. lie
loueHl plaintiff showed he had sustained
ven more damages than he claimed in his !
etlt ION Some of his cattle died. others
''t t'tii caves, amt several had to ~. al
lries received, and We're subsequently, sold {
n butchers meat at a greatly reduced {
rice: Judgment for the plaintiff aoainst {
lie city. -''' t
Supreme sourt