New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-03-10
------------- --------
TIL; COURTS.

| taHlaHtS ana loss SttilfTtu oS 'Iio
from the sinking of tiatboat, loaded with
800 barrels of cement, by the steamship
while the tlatboat WAS proceeding down the
| river in tow of the tugbOat Neatie.
| This is the third suit that has been lnstl-
! tuted against the Juniata within the past
| week.
The libellants, hessrs. ParsglOve, of the
steamship Junata are to show cause on the
eleventh instant why the bond given should
not be reduced.
| c. Schneider ESQ, was accepted as surety
OF the release bond OF the steamship Junl-
| aJa.
| A rule for new trial in the case Of Norton
ct ais against Brandies ct ais. in the United
States District Court, has been filed and
! defendants are to show cause on Nednes-
day why it should not take place.
| The case of w. 4. Walker against the city
| for the restitution of q license paid under
| an ordinance which was afterwards decreed
| unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,
failed. as the jury did not agree. This Is
one Of a number of cases the plaintiffs III
which are industriously sueing the city to
| gain the restitution of q license which every
one had to pay. These suits are all entered
in the Sixth District Court. and the case of
| Walker was the first OF the series. which
| fell through as above.
| The case OF the State in the relation OF
| Jules 4. Rosenhorn, in the Fourth District
| Court. against A. III. farther, recorder, Is
| an application for prohibition restraining
! the recorder from taking any further ac-
ton in the case against Rosenhorn, VINO
| had been arrested for selling Havana
| lottery tickets.
The court, in passing upon the question,
held that none but appellate courts can
| issue writs of prohibition to an inferior
| Judge. That the Fourth District Court Is
not an appellate court, and that the re-
| corder is a magistrate with jurisdiction
tar different from that given to the Fourth
District Court. That the only court which
| could enjoin in civil matters Is the Eighth
| District Court. which has exclusive lurls-
diction in the matter of injunctions, and the
! First District Court in criminal cases.
| The opinion of the court is that selling
| Havana lottery tickets Is not a criminal OF
fense, and, therefore, the recorder has no
| jurisdiction. That the only action which
it gives TO the Louisiana State Lottery Com
| pany is an action for evil damages, which
must be brought before civil court
But whether the recorder is right or
wrong in doing what he has done is mat
! ter with which this court has nothing TO do,
| and in which it is p0werless Tor want OF
jurisdiction to grant a writ OF prohibition.
The petition If E. BermudeZ III the Fifth
| District Court alleged a right to collect a
| class of unsatistcd judgments against the
| CITY. Ire l'ldlUtll tidlHItti tb''I INV i.-h'
to collect the Judgments had already been
contradctorily recognized, and underlt had
| already received cash.
| That. as appears by the returns maze hy
| the sheriff aforesaid, and by evidence IN his
possession. the interest and charges in a
| number of cases under petitioner control
| for collection have been remitted by the
city authorities: that under sad ordinance
| and iudgment petitioner was entitled to re-
cover one-halt of the amount OF interest
and charges so remitteG III each OF SAID
| cases, aggregating the sum OF $loOJ 50.
| which ne had a right to retain; ttat pcU-
| toner since made his report to the city,
| rendering the said certificates and warrants
and the balance in currency. but thht the
report and proposed settlement Was refused
! by the city: that the petitioner then o.
fered to pay over said balance OF money
| and deliver the certificates and warrants
on a proper receipt being furnished
| him therefor without prejudice 10 the
rights. if any, OF the city. to claim
more if entitled thereto, and that even
such form of settlement was deciinet
The petitioner then deposited SAID cert!f;-
| Gates, warrants and money aforesaid 10 Ire
! order of the city i'll the New Orleans Ma
tional Banking Association. the t-scal
| Agent OF the city.
He prays that the city be condemned to
receive the report. certificates. warrants, etc.
Judge DibDle decided the following cases
| yesterday:
Thomassin VS.. Rivera-This was a motion
| for "a rev trial in the case between the
above parties, III which the Wv ofGick LOT
| Tantet" was rendered.
The court held tina. although 1t was eVi-
IDENTIFY the intention of the jury to render
verdict tor dei. ndant, Tor IN tact they SO
| verbally expressed themselves. Yet the law
requires the verdict to be taken from the
| written declaration of the jury, and mas
much as the verdict rendered was not an IN
| telligibie one, a new trial would be granted.
State ex. rel. James Bynum ct. al vs.
James Graham, Auditor. Application tor
! a mandamus to compel the Auditor to Issue
| warrants for eX penses incurred III repairing
the State Penitentiary. ln this case the
| court at first ordered the Mandamus to be
made peremptorv, but upon suggestion bT
counsel that section loI OF the Revised
! Statutes, under which Tie sult was brought,
| WAS repealed bv the appropriation Oiti,
passed by the last Assembly. the court OF
! dcred that the Judgment be not entered I'M
til a further examination could tie inhue.
In the case "t Sergeant NVnuc against
the Board Of Metropolitan Police. Judge
Cooley decided substantially ;;s follows:
Plaintiff sued the Board of metropolitan
Police III their corporate capacity tor haF-
| lug illegally dismissed him from the lorco.
| good behavior, and that he could not be
dismissed without written charges beng
! preferred against him and an opportuhli :
| given him TO defend himself. Ilalntiif
! alleges thai no charges were made against
| him and no cause was shown tor his 'iS-
| missal From the evidence it appears tie
the Board of Metropolitan Police took as a
prctext for his dismissal that he bad Dcen
found without his uniform. | can not be-
| lieve, from the testimony, that the cause
| assigned by the board for dismissal, Was
| the true cause. That was evidently a pre-
| text, for the rule requiring the uniform
, when on duty is not respected by slnSie
| member of the force to the knowledge OF the
| board. 1t was never respected by the
plaintiff predecessor or since his dl5lnlss"i
! by his successor, anu that to the knowledge
| of the board.
But whatever might have been the cause
of his dismissal, plaintiff has mistaken his
! cause of action; if he has been damaged ne
can recover from them individually, but he
| can not recover from the board
If the theory upon which his petition Is
! prcdicated be true, there has been m&'ice
| ON the part of the members of the board,
and they can net certainly bind their con,
| stituents-the taxpayers of this city ard
State-iOr the damages caused by Their
| malicious acts. Barring no authority to 90
| so, they can not be i'll the taxpayers to pay
for their nisdeeds by contribution of taxes.
The plaintiff has not made his case
against the board. whatever may he his
| rights against the individual member OF it
Judgment for defendant.
One of the most amiable and pleasant
gentlemen in this city is Captain Gus
Richards, proprietor of the Orleans llo1se
corner of St. Charles and Common streets
His urharity is inst as natural TO him as tbt