New Orleans Republican., 1872-06-04
THE COURTS.
United States Circuit Court.

United States Circuit Court.
The appointment of George G. Blodgett
as United States Commissioner was re-
vOked.
j. D. Cox VS.. Steamer Lotawanna.-A
suspensive appeal ordered in favor of the
inteTvenOrs, Wilson, Fagin g. Co., and John
Chaffe g. Co. The court avoids a former
Judgment, and decrees the claims of the
mariners and furnishers of supplies to be
superior, and entitled to be paid in pre-
ference to all Others,
Seward a. Kip VS.. Steamer TeutOnia.-
Libelants move for new trial on the judg-
ment dismissing their libel
j. NJ. Thompson VS.. Steamer Great Re
public.-A suspensive appeal to the Su-
preme Court allowed.
Oscar SimOnin and -. The United
States FeeOvers of Oscar CzaTnOwsld and
Lewis Phelps, sureties, the sum of $25S p.
The distillery was hbeled on the fifth of
February, 1870, for this That the defendant
being engaged in the manufacture of whls-
Ky, signed bond subject to conditions
which he has mot complied with, as there
are owing revenue taxes for deficiency Of
spirits, S244 90 and five per cent penalty.
United States District Court.
In the case Of Ar. Miltenberger VS.. G. II.
Slocomb the court was unable to complete
the panel of jurors, when the case was con-
tinued.
Harbor Protection Company VS.. ship Van
cOuver.-The court deereed that twelve per
cent of the value of the ship Vancouver be
allowed the company for the use of their
tug Tyler in towing the vessel from fire on
the fifth of January, 1872, claimants paying
costs.
George C. Love VS.. $4,000 staves.-This
case was submitted.
W. H. Lecor vs.. ship Yictory.-Order Of
rule issued.
F. Olsen VS.. A. P. Blanchard Case sub
mitted.
Second District Court.
James O'Hara VS.. succession of John
Davidson. in former judgment rendered
in this case, the court had declared the law
creating a public printer unconstitutional
as regards the city of New Orleans, and
the defendant bound by the publications
made in the Crescent, then the official jour
nal of the city, for the grading and she'll
ing of Locust street. The court, on mo-
tiOn of defendant for a new trial, has grant
ed a rehearing.
Judge Duyigneaud, in passing upon the
case, SAYS:
have attentively listened to the able ar
gument of the learned counsel for the de-
fendant, and after long and mature de-
liberation, have been unable to change or
modify my former judgment. If were in
clined to adopt the arguments and views OF
the learned counsel for resisting the pay
ment of the grading and sheling made in
front of his lots, l would be compelled to
arrive to a very inconsistent conclusion.
The defendant in his argument admits
with the court that the law under which
the publication for the shelling of Locust
street was made is unconstitutional, and
yet he pretends that the notice to be given
to the front proprietOrs' ought to have been
made in the REPUBLICAN,, the journal
selected by the public printer as the official
Journal of the city under the provisions of
that unconstitutional law, and the only one
IN which the present prOprietors who have
not signed the petition for the shelIing of
SAID street, were to look for the notice IN
order 70 bind them, and not in the Crescent
the official journal of the city at that time.
Defendant pretends further that the citi-
zens are not bound to decide whether law
IL constitutional or not, and their duty is to
obey the law as long as it remains on the
statute book undistU bed. / can nOI concur
with the learned counsel upon this point
neither. The citizens, as well as members
of the legal profession, are bound to notice
the eonstitutiOnality of law, and, at any
time, they have the right to avail them
selves of such illegality, when obligations
contracted by them under such law are
tried to be enforced.
The Supreme Court has lately decided
that all the taxes paid by the merchants
stitutonal law ought to be reimbursed to
them by the city, which has collected said
taxes from the year 1867 to 1870.
In this case the city of New Orleans,
with proper disregard of the law creating
public printer, being unconstitutional as
regards said city, had caused to be pub
hshed in the Crescent, which was then the
official journal of said city, the notice re-
quired by law to be given to front proprie-
tors on the street intended to be graded
and shelled, according to the contract en-
tered into between said city and the plain
tiffs in this case.
The defendant, being one of the front
prOpTiet0rs on said street, was bound by
the notice given in the Crescent if the law
creating public printer is unconstitutional,
as he admits.
There is no door through which he can
escape from the dilemma in which he has
placed himself. If you admit that the law
creating a public printer is unconstitutional
as regards the city of New Orleans, you
must admit at the same time that the city
had right to disregard it as to continue its
publications in the Crescent, its official jour
nal
The reasons and decree of my former
judgment are readopted, and the same is
the final judgment Of this court in the
above entitled case.
Second District Court.
r. Poole under tutor, vs. Lawrence P.
Hill, tutor-This suit was brought by the
under tutor of the minors Julia Ann Law
renee, Hayward and Samuel Hill, against
their tutor, Lawrence p. Hill, for the pur-
pose Of removing from Office said tutor.
In answer to the petition the defendant
excepted to the jurisdiction of the court,
alleging among other reasons that defend
ant resided in Mobile, Alabama, and can be
sued only at the place Of his dOmicile.
Judge Duvigneaud in passing upon the
case says:
In my opinion this court never loses its