New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-25

| the conditional vendor, Will no1 snA0lu guy
property from his creditor, VINO was ".
noraut Of the facts when its seizur9 was
II was therefore ordered that the judg-
ment appealed from be reversed, and that
there be Judgment in favor of defendant, H.
4. HAYS. with costs in both courts.
Fourth District Court.
Iniunctions were yesterday issued in the
several tax cases, the plaintiffs in which
epioin the seizure by the Sheriff Of theft
| property The following is the principal
one of these suits:
20. A. Fellows VS.. City of New Orleans.
! The petitioner Graves an injunction restrain
| ing Sheriff Sauyinet from further proceed
ings under a writ of fieri facias issued by
this court in the suite the city against said
Fellows for SlS2S with interest,"
The Sheriff has seized under said writ
the property of petitioner, bounded by ST.
Charles, Jena, Cadiz and Apollo streets,
and Apollo, jena, Bacchus and Cadiz,
being the whole of two squares.
As the Sheriff is in three days to adYer-
tise said property for sale, petitioner alleges
that the writ is not in form and sufficient in
law to authorize the seizure that it is ille-
gally issued, etc. Also that said property
is under seizure for the taxes of 1870
But should the claim, the petitioner says,
forming part of the Judgment under which
the writ of fieri facias Aforesaid was issued
be the city taxes of 1871, levied for the eX-
penses of the city of New Orleans for the
year 1871, but On an assessment of the
value of property made in the year 1870,
! and hence enormously styled the tax of 1870,
then the petitioner alleges and AYERS that
said tax is illegal, null and void, for this,
viz: That the assessors of petitioners prop
erty made in the year 1870 were not the
| legal assessors; that they were neither
elected by the citizens of the State nor of
the city, nor were they appointed by those
who were thus elected; that they were not
sworn to make true assessment,
nor were they otherwise qualified
by law to make a legal assessment
further, because the parties who levied said
tax and appointed said assessors had not
the right-legal, constitutional, or other
wise-TO make said levy or such appraise-
ment; that they were not the choice of the
voters of the city, and were never voted for
by them, but were the appointees of Gov
ernOr Warmoth, and, as petitioner is in
formed and believes, under his complete
control; that at the time of their appoint
ment they lodged with him resignation of
their Office of Administrator, with the date
left in blank, and which resignation said
WarmOth took and retained. nssl
Petitioner then AYERS that the law author
izing such. appointment of Mayor and Ad
ministrat0rs, and the manner and form of
their appointment, is unconstitutional, H.
legal, null and void, and in violation of the
constitution of the United States, especially
wherein it guarantees to each State a repub-
lican form of governments; that the tax
sought to he collected exceeds the rate al
lowed by law; that portions of said tax are
for purposes of State institution, and for
matters and things solely and exclusively
under State control, and the expenses of
which should be supported by tax levied
by and made uniform throughout the State;
that of such character are the taxes called
the park fund, the school and metropolitan.
Petitioner prays that judgment against
him be declared null and void, the tar
sought to be collected declared unconstitu
tional, null and void, and the injunction
maintained. Also for $500 damages.
A number Of similar suits against the city
have also been filed in this court.
InjunetiOns have issued in all the above
cases.
Fifth District Court.
Numerous suits against the city of New
Orleans have been entered In this court to
recover money paid for licenses.
One lawyer has secured 500 and another
nearly 400 cases.
Eighth District Court.
Judge Dibble rendered decisions yester-
day in the following suits:
j. b. Howard vs. j. PiRckney Smith,
Warrant Clerk, and James Graham, Aud
this case Judge Dibble has ordered
a writ of mandamus to issue as against the
j. Pincknev Smith. The writ is
refused as against Auditor Graham. j.
Smith is to pay costs Of writ.
Howard is the holder of certain checks is
sued by Pinckney Smith, Warrant Clerk of
the Legislature, in lieu of certain vouchers
issued by the officers of the Senate Of the
session of 1872, amounting to $1,000, which
vouchers were issued to Mrs. O. j. Dunn
by virtue of a resolution of that body.
Howard claimed that it was the duty of the
Warrant Clerk to take up these checks, and
TO issue in their stead his warrants on the
Auditor, to the end that the latter may war
rant on the Treasurer against the $4,000
of 1872
w. HOnneus vs.. S. NJ. Todd.-This was
suit to recover on promissOry note for
$500. Defendant denied his liability to pay
on the ground that it was given as a COM
for the obtaining of nOlle prose-
lui in a case before United States court,
and, the transaction being opposed to good
morals, the consideration for which the note
was given vitiates the contract. The court
sustained that view and gave Judgment for
defendant.
George w. Bate and wife VS.. the city of
New Orleans-This was an action for
damages consequent upon the death of
plaintiffs child, who fell through a hole in
the levee aud was drowned. The city ex-
cepted on the ground that the city, not
having immediate control and charge of
the leYees, could not be held liable for
damages arising through a neglect to re-
pair the same.
The court quoted several authorities to
show that the city was liable, and over
ruled the exceptions.
Graham, State AuditOr,-Relato applied
for a mandamus to compel the issuance of
for $1,000, in accordance with an
act of the Legislature appropriating that
amount for his relief, to reimburse him for
expenses incurred in his defense on the
charge of murder. The Attorney General,
for the Auditor, anowered that the appro
DriatiOn was Illegal, inasmueh as at the
lime it was passed the State debt exceeded
.he limit of So, 100000.
Judge Dibble decided that this claim was
4 natural obligation on the part OF the State,
which she could contract at will, and that
The constitutional amendment limiting the
State debt could not apply here. Man
1amus granted.
The same decree was ordered IN the case
Of T. d. Thompson, assessor of the parish
IF st. Helena VS.. the Auditor, claiming
" arrant under an act making an appropr1a-
ton for his relief,
A Man Broken In Two.