New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-28
THE WEEKLY REPUBLICAN
Terms OF Subscription.
. year, IS; six months, 81 so.
THE COURTS.
Fifth District Court.

- THE COURTS.
Fifth District Court.
William Weber, ex4ecorder of the Fourth
s0ieGict, who was succeeded IN his ONCE by
= e. Billings, has brought suit against the
t1stter for $4,000 damages, originating in
* - act of the defendant in fling before the
Y Gznnd Jury, on March ii, 1872, three separ
zSfe bills of complaint, charging said Weber
Nth certain crimes, on which the grand
= Jury returned not true bill.
Rhoda White vs. Myra Clark Gaines. This
<use was argued and submitted.
sixth District Court.
The mandamus on the Judge of the Sixth
Z District Court, commanding an appeal to be
aknnted in one of the license cases to the
&apreme Court, has already been noted.
Il Tk6 work of trial in these suits is short
cEke plaintiff demands his license he paid
n refunded, since it was uncOnstitutiOnally
4ovied. The city asks for jury: The jury
Il i've their verdict against the city. The
sGnso is over. There can be no appeal, say
3 plaintiffs, because the amount in dispute
Z. S less than $500. The weight OF the man.
lanus above mentioned will at once be
S0eeu. At present there are at least fifty
+ .eSees on the docket for the week, consisting
- tihose who have sued the city in the man
3t6er described. This intimated mandamus
1 I'll be required in each case before an ap-
Gal wiz be allowed.
Seventh District Court.
Judge Collens has rendered the opinion
which follows, in the case of NJ. Shelly &
60. A. w. Walker. The plaintiff furnished
5fnpplies to DEFENDANTS plantation in 1868,
md on January 9, 1869, before the cultiva-
ou of the crop of 1869 commenced. He
Ia proceeded in rem to enforce his demand
~ these supplies by representation OF fifteen
G9esheads Of sugar, portion OF the crop OF
sHq8, and claiming privilege thereon. The
/. notuestratiOn was issued and executed IN
! SRie parish, though the defendant is resi-
~1eut of the parish of st. Bernard. The
>.oourt heidi No personal Judgment can be
rendered. against him. The only question
e whether the plaintiff has the privilege he
aims, and may enforce it in rem.
He had and has privilege on the crop OF
Z The act of IS43, o. "A, amending article
&C. C.. 1884, granted a privilege to debts
sdue for necessary supplies furnished firm
-or plantation on the product Of the last crop
I'D the crop at present in the ground but
sesvon If the terms of this act covered this
eaee, is of no avail, since it was repealed by
Z tie act of 1867, p. 81, which give the
! pnvilege only ION the crop OF the year and
1ae proceeds thereof" See Rays Digest,
.articte $50. This is repeated in the Code of
ISL
Judgment against plaintiffs demand for a
sspeiyilege on the property sequestered, and
that his suit for money Judgment be dis
eanissed, as in case of nonsuit.
Eighth District Court.
Judge Dibble has given reasons for judg-
s1aents which follow, the conclusions OF the
-aame being given.
Z State ex rel. w. Georges ct ais. We. Jack
4 Wharton ct ais. This was suit under the
-1ntrusion act, involving a contest for the
possession of the Offices of State assessors
3Dr the city of New Orleans.
The court held that although w. Georges
4.et ais. were appointed, and filed their bonds
with the State Auditor, in 1871, there was
,nOevidence to show that their appointments
were confirmed by the Senate. BY reason
sOf this the Offices became vacant, and the
sGOvernOr, according to the power dele
Gated, immediately filled the vacancies by
&ppOin ting Jack Wharton and others, COM
Doeing the new board, which appointments
y Gnust hold good until action is taken thereon
1T the next session of the Senate The suit
was ordered dismissed.
State ex rel William Georges VS.. James
Graham, State Auditor.
State ex rel. Jack Wharton VS.. the same,
consolidated.
These were applicationsfor mandamus to
compel the Auditor to issue the warrants to
,relator for $1,000 each, claiming the same
under the act appropriating an advance
poyment. to the State assessor LOT the city
Of New Orleans, payable April and July !.
According to the decision just rendered
in the case of State ex rel. William Georges
<et al. VS.. Jack Wharton ct ais, the writ was
I granted in favor of Jack Wharton, dismiss
ing the application of Georges.
State ex rel. George E. Bovee VS.. +. D..
Heron -Relator claimed that, since the
Legislature failed to take any action upon
his susp ension from Office by the Governor
he was restored to the possession OF the
office.
The court held that the committee APP
pointed to investigate the charges made by
the Governor against Bovee had made
report, stating that they had not been able
4 20 make full report. The Legislature
took no final action upon the matter, but
!. ordered the report printed, and it being not
yet disposed Of REALTORS rights are not yet
asceItained. The suit was dismissed
George Gallagher VS.. - Brickman;
plaintiff claimed $4,000 damages arising
4rom an assault by defendant, inflieting
Seyere mental and physical injuries. The
court allowed Sl50.
New Orlea As Republican Printing Com
many VS.. j. II. Wiison.-Injunction per-
petuated, and defendants unconventional
demand dismissed.