New Orleans Republican., 1872-08-02
THE COURTS.
Eighth District Court.

Eighth District Court.
The case of Joseph L. Tharp against
Timothy DOherty, State tax collector OF the
Sixth District of this city, in which plain
titf charged defendant with having usurped
and intruded into aud unlawtully holding
and exercising the functions of the office OF
State tax collector of the Sixth District of
the city of New Orleans, was decided by
the jury in favor of Mr.. DOherty.
Tharp claimed to have been appointed
collector of the Sixth District by Governor
WarmOth on the eighth Of June, 1872, and
that he had qualified, etc.
Doherty denied the allegations of plain
tiff and alleged that he (DOherty) was the
sole and bona tide tax collector of the State
for the Sixth District, that he had been
commissioned, sworn, given bond, and
faithfully discharged all the duties of said
office, except when interrupted by the law
less and violent attempts made to remove
him.
The verdict of the jury dissOlves the
writs of injunction and sequestratiOn sued
out, and leaves DOherty in possession Ofthe
Office Of tax collector. DOherty has re-
served his right of action for damages
against J. L. Tharp.
The defense cOntended that Governor
Warmoth had committed an arbitrary and
unlawful act in removing DOherty from
office, the latter having faithfully dis
charged his duties.
Mr.. Tharp was represented by Attorney
General BeIden, Judge A. A AtOcha and j.
p, Horner. General Harry T. Hays and
Mr.. John Ellis defended Mr.. Doherty.
The two rules in the case Of Bronson VS..
HOlbrOOk, one for alimOny by Jennie BrOn-
son HulbroOk, and to set aside the appeal
by A, NJ HOlbrOOk, having been continued
to Thursday, were accordingly taken up
Yesterday at II A. NJ, when, upon calling
the witnesses, four who had been attached
failed to answer, wheTeupOn Mr.. Howard
asked for a.cOntinuauce on the ground that,
without the absent witnesses, he could not
90 on with the case, as their testimony was
very essential to his client
Judge Morgan argued that counsel could
hardly claim a continuance on the grounds
set forth, inasmuch as the witnesses had
been pro perly attached, and, if not in court,
counsel had his recourse to compel their
attendance.
Mr.. Howard strenuOusly opposed the trial
of the case under existing circumstances,
but the court held that the case must go on,
and thereupon ordered the absent witnesses
to be sent for instantCr.
Mr.. Howard-May it please your honor,
if you order the case to trial, will not be
able to take part in it. can Only sit down
and listen to the opposite counsel.
The Court Judge Emerson Very well.
Go on 1Ir. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan stated that he had no further
evidence to offer, but that, touching the
taking of Mrs. RusselPs testimony (which
had been offered by counsel for A. NJ HOl-
brook on Wednesday, twenty-fourth ult-
imO), be desired to have called the sheriff
who served Mrs. Bronson HOlbTOOk with
notice that such testimony was to be taken,
to prove that the notice was given early
enough to enable Mrs. HOlbrOOk to be pres
ent at the taking of the testimony.
The sheriff theTeupOn being called, testi-
fed that he served the notice at 1915 p. NJ,
the testimony having been taken at 2:3O P.
NJ. Witness also testified that he left
similar notice at Mr.. HOward's office, that
| gentleman being out of town.
Mr.. Howard now maintained that even if
! the service were good, the fact that no
counsel was present to represent Mrs. HOl-
| brook should invalidate the testimony; but
! this the court Overruled to which Mr. How
! ard took bill Of exceptions.
Thereafter came up the question: Was
! there given sufficient time, between l2:l5
| and 2:30 P. NJ, 10 enable Mrs. HOlbrOOk,
! who was at No. 266 Roman street, to reach
| No. 81 Chestnut street, where the testimony
was taken
The court decided that sufficient time had
| been gwen.
Pending the arrival Of attached witnesses
| the court took a recess.
Referring to the evidence of Mrs. Russell,
the following affidavit has been made:
Alva NJ. HolbrOOk VS. Mrs. Jennie BrOn-
| son, his wife.-Henry L. Hubert, deputy
| sheriff and crier of the Eighth District
Court. Orleans parish, being sworn, says
! that he was present in the clerks office Of
the Eighth District Court on Saturday,
| July 20, 1872 at l2:l6 p. NJ, at which time
counsel for A. NJ. HOlbrOOk, plaintiff, pre-
sented to him to be served on the defendant
herein and her counsel a notice to take tes-
timony of Mrs Martha A. Russell, residing
at No. 81 Chestnut street, New Orleans, on
the rules in tkis case, to be taken at 2:3O p.
NJ same day. Notice had not been served
| nor sent to the civil sheritf's office to be
served at that time, at which time defend
ants counsel was absent from the State,
and this fact made known by me to plain
tiff-s counsel at the time.
r. II. HUBERT.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
first day of August, 1872.
o. NJ. TENNISON, Deputy Clerk.
The above statement Is correct
S. 2. WILLIAMS,
GEORGE w. FLYNN,
ALEN. T. DONOVAN,
ALBERT FLANAGAN.
Subscribed to and sworn to before me
this twenty-sixth July, 1872.
THOMAS SQUIRE, Clerk.
At l:lJ p. NJ. the deputy sheriff returned
to court with the intelligence that the miss
ing witnesses could not be found, where
upon Judge Morgan desired to know what
it was proposed to prove by the Witnesses
Mr.. Howard replied that it would take him
three hours to write out the facts which he
intended to prove by them.
The court then ordered the case to be
continued until today, at II A. NJ, to give
counsel time to prepare the documents, and
to grant further time for the procuring of
the missing witnesses, reDlarking that the
case would then be tried, even if the wit
nesses were not on hand. Abiding to the
return of the sheriff, Judge Emerson stated
that he had yet to learn that sheriff had a
right to return a writ without having exc