New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-12-10
THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.

This tribunal was in session yesterda,
morning. Present-Chief Justice Lude
ling and Justices Taliaferro, Howell AM
| Kennard.
The rule for contempt taken by Simeon
Belden. Attorney General, on the informa
ton Of George Z Bovee, Secretary Of State
against Judge ". A. Elmore and E. 7
Manning, clerk Of the Eighth District
| Court, was decided by imposing fine o.
| $50 on Judge w a. ElmOTe and commit
| ting him for ten dars in the Parish Prison
! and Mr. Manning $50 fine and five days in
| the Parish Prison.
Eighth District GOurt.
The Eighth District Court room was
! guarded Yesterday morning by posse OF
deputy sherifs, as it has been for several
days and their heretofore placid existence
suffered sudden and rather startling rip
pie by the entrance into the court room, at
1915 A. NJ, of Judge Dibble, whose APP
pearance was the signal for very quick
movements on the part of the sherifts, two
of whom took up their positions at either
entrance to the bench, prepared to herolcal-
" defend the portals of that spot.
Contrary to expectation, Judge Dibble
very quietly took a seat outside in the
court room, and noting the eagerness of
the officials, blandly remarked to them:
young gentlemen, you need not he
alarmed. | am not going to make any
demonstration on this court; | have given
my word to Judge ElmOIe that [ would
notify him before attempting to take pos
session, and when | do so notify him, am
going in"
1t now transpired that Judge Dibble had
put in an appearance for the trial of an in
junction suit of William A. ElmOre VS.. II.
c. Dibble, for the possession of the Office of
Judge Of this court, fixed for hearing. The
petition Of Judge EImore in the case has
already been published.
The answer OF Judge Dibble is as fol-
lows:
l. That in order that his right may be
protected in the premises and in order
that he may not render himself liable to be
defeated in his rights by plea Of estopped
or judicial admission, respondent respect
fully insists that the honorable judge before
whom these proceedings are held is not
Judge dc jure of the Fifth District Court
aforesaid; respondent further insists, in
consonance with the theory Of his defense
and with view to the protection of his
rights, that inasmuch as he. respondent,
is de jure and de facto judge Of this
court, that no other district judge
can legally or constitutiOnally pre-
side in this court until this respondent
has recused himself, and has requested
such other district judge to preside in his
place and stead. But now this respondent,
WlbnOuU WdlVluS ulS OWN IlSuL 10 RESUME
this discharge of his functions only for the
purpose of defending this action to be tried,
admits that the honorable judge be
fore whom these proceedings are had is
de factO Judge of the said Eighth District
Court, by reason Of the abandonment Of the
office by his predecessor, and respondent
now formally valves the right which he
claims to designate the judge who shall act
in this case, and in cons0nance with the
of biS Jafausa lGnI1raa b1roGaIf GO.
cure herein,
Further, respondent states that he was
never legally Invested Of his right to exer-
else the duties of his Office of judge of the
Eighth District Court, and that said Elmore
never was legally commissioned; is there
fore occupying such office without author
ity of law; and therefore respondent de-
Dies that in contemplation of law plaintiff
has been commissioned judge of this court.
Respondent especially denies that plaintiff
has ever been indicted into the office of
Judge of this court, or has ever held said
Office by color of title on any legal author
ity
Respondent shows that on the - day Of
November, 1872, the said plaintiff, aided
and assisted by an armed mob, seized
forGible possession of this court, excluded
this respondent theretrom by violence, and
las held the Office by force and violence
from that time to this, all OF which will be
fully and c nclusively shown.
Defendant then assumiI the position OF
plaintiff in recOnventinn, AYERS that he is
de il T.. ald de facto judge of the Eighth
District Court; that he has the right to eX-
erCise said office without u esta ion L, I'll
a successor shall have been elected and 10
galIy commissioned in conformity to official
PRONUNCIATION.
He AYERS that there has been no canvass
of votes east at the late election, and no
PRONUNCIATION Of the election OF bis sue
cessor: that, notwithstanding this, the said
w. A. Gilmore is interfering with plaintiff
and prevents him exercising the duties OF
said office, and for this plaintiff has sut-
fered damages in the sum OF $1,000; that
be does not admit that an injunction suit
as such can be maintained tor the pos
session Of a public office; wherefore, with
cut being committed to the legal proptiety
Of these proceedings, plaintiff, in reconyen.
ton, shows that it is necessary that a writ
Of injunction issue to restrain defendant
from interfering with petitioner III the dis
cha "ge Of his judicial functions
The petition closes with prayer that w.
A Il more be restrained from exercising
any of the duties or the office Of Judge Of
the Eighth District Court, from interfering
with the petitioner in his right TO exercise
the same; and furthermore that he De con
demned to pay to plaintiff in reconVenton,
the sum of $1,000.
Judge +. n. Co1lum occupied t 9 bench
for the trial of this case.
Mr.. John Ray, who appeared for respond
emf, after reading the petition and answer,
requested of the court that it order the issu-
ahce of tho rule nisi prayed for III the an
swer in recOnyention
To this Judge CuIom replied that he de
sired to hear arguments. Thereupon, Judge
Cooley, Mr.. Ray and Judge Dibble argued