New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-01-30
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court Decfsions.


The following decisions Of the Supreme
Court, read yesterday. are reported. The
most important of these cases are con-
densed:
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.
C. s. Sauvinet against j. A. Walker
This is an appeal taken by defendant from
a Judgment of the Eighth District Court,
mnIcting him in damages of $1,000 for re-
tusing accommodations to the plaintiff, and
being ordered to leave the cotfeehouse Of
the defendant. The damages were exem-
plary.
Taliaferro, J.-All the allegation of the
tablished.
Ii is clear that the refusal of the accom-
modations asked for was made solely on the
ground that the plaintiff is Il man of color
The defendant has therefore incurred the
penalty of the act of 1869, page 81. We
think the Judgment Of the lower court cor
rect.
This was concurred in by Justices Lude-
ling, Howell and Howe, j., the latter say
ing:
The provision Of the constitution and the
statute under which this suit was brought
should be enforced. So long as they are the
law of the State we can not treat them as
dead letters; but, after hearing the dissent
ing opinion of Justice WHY. ! am inclined
to think the damages excessive.
WHY, j., dissenting:
The plaintiff had the right to he served at
the barroom o. the defendant The refusal
ought not to entitle him, a colored man, to
greater damages than white man ought to
receive it being no greater wrong to refuse
u cOlOred than IA white man.
The question of color has nothing to do
with tile case nor is the position OF the
plaintiff Of the slightest consequence; No
actual damage was shown. The penalty Is
wholly disprOportionate to the offense
If. instead of refusing the Pialnnf
drink merely, the defendant had seized a
chair and beaten him half to death. the
damages would not probably have exceeded
$50. Yet is the right to enjoy the enter
tainment of a drinking saloon of greater
moment or more sacred than the right of
personal security from violence!
To vindicate Mr.. Sauvinet's civil rights it
is not necessary to despOil the defendant, or
to impose on him a greater penalty that he
can bear.
| believe justice requires the case should
be remanded.
Christopher De Harde, master of the ship
Constautia, against bark Magdalena, mas
ter and owners.-This is an appeal from
Judgment of the Seventh District Court. re-
iectinc the demand of plaintiff, who sued
Tor the damage done his ship by collision
with the bark. WHY, j., proceeded to de
termine upon the defense. that at the time
of the collision the bark was under the con-
troll of the harbOr master, and that the
damage was not Occasioned by any fault or
negligence of the officers and crew.
The State ruled the court can not enforce
an admiralty lien z ven by law for the re
covery of damages for n maritime tort. and
an attachment will not lie when the claim
is for damages erdelicfO.
This suit may be treated as in the case of
a personal action against the master and
owners for whatever damages suffered by
the tort. The damage occurred by the fault
of the harbor master. Whether the owners
are responsible or not, We can not in this
case decide. because the owners are not be-
fore the court. The master, not being on
board at the time of the collision, Ia not re-
sponsible.
H. r. Short against E. Lapeyrouse, Third
District Court. a question OF doncile, III
which the court ruled the domIcile of the
defendant to be in this city.
State against William Leslie. First Dis
trict Court. The defendant, among other
points. set up this: That being an attorney
at law. he is not amenable to a statute as
applying TO larceny and embezzlement, and
any act performed by him in professional
capacity does not amount To more than
breach of trust. Wyly, J. The crime OF
which the defendant is charged is clearly
embraced in the law under which he was
tried and convicted
Robert p Smith against the city.
X. H. Noble against Louis Frost and
Henry Weber Question of partnership.
c. A. e. l.. l.. Conrad against +. w. Bur.
bank, Fifth District Court
Gottlieb WeidhaIt VS.. John 3. Hauter
heimer.
joachim Badeaux against E. VI. Blake,
District Court of Latourche.
James A. Young against Magazine Street
Railroad.
The subject matter in the controversy of
A. Glenn against Thompson and Barnes, l..
f.. Amsnk subr0gated, was a rule taken
upon the sureties of defendants to compel
them to paw Judgment of the Fourth Dis
trct Court, which decreed that the claims
originally sued on in the case of A. Glenn
against Thompson and c. Barnes to be the
property of l.. +. Amsink & Co. The sure
ties, X. NJ and B. J. Montgomery, con-
tested the ownership of the plaintiffs, who,
they set up, are precluded from asserting
title to the Judgment under Clean, after
cOntesting his right to it in the former pro-
ceeding. Judgment was rendered for
plaintiffs and the sureties appealed.
CAUSE REMANDED.
City for the use of the consolidated debt
controller. This is an appeal from a judg
ment CT the Fifth District Court against
Howell for $237l0, held to he due the city
on account of collections made as treasurer,
and which he failed to pay over to the com
missioners of the consolidated debt How
elrs sureties were released The case was
remanded by the court because 1--WE are in
clined to doubt whether all the various
count books and documents necessary to
L., had f,tlly tod
and because, being somewhat complicated,
the case required further investigation.
MANDAMUs DIsALLowED.
State ex rel. ID. C. Byerly, clerk of the
Third District Court, against John 5. Wal
ton, Administrator of Finance.-This is an
appeal from a Judgment of the Eighth Dis
trict Court Diminishing the Intervention Of
the clerks of courts and rendering peremp-
tory the mandamus prayed FOR by Byerly,
commanding the Administrator to file suit
on the tax bills in the Third District Court
where the claims amount, severally. to 500
or less, after due publication i'll the official
journal The Administrator appealed.
" Wv, j., pronounced the Judgment of the
court below erroneous Byerly, the relator
discloses no interest to justify the litigation
Until he earns fees the city owes him
nothing He has no right, either as clerk
or citizen, to exercise supervisory control
over the city or its Administrators, or to
demand of the Administrator of Finance
that he shall publish the list of delinquent
taxpayers, and that certain suits shall be
instituted by the city in the Third District
Court.
AS to his interest as a taxpayer, it will be
time enough for the relator to complain
when he is called upon to pay an illegal or
improper tax.
Byerly, the clerk, has no interest to apply
for the remedy of mandamus. As to him,
this is speculative question which this
court will not attempt to solve