New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-05-24
to tie Supreme Court, when Re was adj
Judged il contempt
EirSt nSSsr;cn

| Gregory Russell, charged with rape Hpoi
MS daughter. pleaded not gully.
John LATTE pleaded gniltv TO the charge
| OF larcenv-senteIce deferred.
| George Fritz alias Frey and John Boyle
| charged with obtaining goods under falst
| pretences, pleaded not guilty.
| Caroline Mitchell Pleaded guilty OF al
assault on Carrie Lee and was Sentenced tC
one day in the Parish Prison.
| Jeremiah Fox. charged With .he murder
OF John DugaE on the tweAtv-tirs: OF Jan
| nary last, a. the corner vi Magazine and
| Girol streets. was tried.
| James Gallagher. Thomas Murray, Thcm
| as Brennan and William sullivan. alias
| Billy Little. charged with rot'.iag and muir
| dering c. +. Moves. aud J. NJ. Roach. with
being accessory before the :ac'. were ar
| raigIed and cases iaes f.: :Ilal On the
| sixth ut June.
second District Court.
Snccess:ons Of Jean foune. Join Pros
per White. widow OF George White. and
George Winston White opened.
Fourth Distrie, Coart.
Paul Tulane VS.. C.. Yale. Jr. l. Cc-
Judge Lynch delivered :he following de.
cision:
This case was remanied w the Supreme
Court back 20 this court. with instructions
" LLc huge sEtlttl ~ dIIoN INC POI IICS ~
introduce evidence iD relation 10 the actua;
domiciie Of the defendant. c. Yale. Jr.. a.
the time Che contrac: OF cease sued .ipon
was entered into, viz, the third Vi August.
1871.
Tie above mandate was fled IN :lis
court February e. 1871. and a supplemental
petition was filed by plaintiff on May IL.
1873, ale cling That the lease sued on herein.
which IS dated August 3. 1861. IS tu: Tie
=;
agreement or contract Of lease actually Ell.
tered into between the petitioner and said
defendant. etc. Tie defendants have ex.
cep.eL 10 said supplemental! petition. on
these grounds. which are as follows:
I. Tina. the supplemental petition varies
and sets forth totally different contcac:
ana cause OF action from tnat mentioned II
the original petition. and changes the issue
between the parties.
=. The case having been renanCed by the
Supreme Court for a specific purpose. this
cour: has 70 jurisdiction to enlarge The IL.
ouiry. ard allow such amendments as
change che original controversy. OK intro.
Iuce new elements into the case.
3. So Ear as the action OF this court is
concerned. its jurisdiction is confined by
the mandate u the Supreme Court 20 an in.
quirv into the domicile OF Cyrus Yale. Jr.
teen il uDnecessar: 70 notice the first
ElCaEu hUtbt ST. AOI IL, w ~ tSC-GC W EttLCI
tie supplemental petition herein filed varies
and se,s forth difitren: cause Of action
and differ cit contract.
Neither is t necessary 10 notice The sec
ona ground. which is only a declaration Of
the action CT che Supreme Ccart il tie
pre- misses
The .lird ground is the construction
given by defendants counse. to the scope
and effect of the mandate Of The Supreme
I,~I.< -,
court las no other jurisdiction tlan that Of
carrying ou. the mandate aforesaid. the
only question 20 be considered is what that
mandate is. This is easily determined from
Its inspection. Its language IS plain. pre-.
else and Advantageous. and its instructions
specific and precise.
1. orders this court 20 allow .he ntroduc
ton If evidence in relation 20 the actual
dou.cile OF the defendant, c. Yale. Jr.. or
the .nird of August, 1861. That mandate
this court mas: enforce. and beyond Il 4
cannot go. The mandate alone gives this
cour! the right 20 act in tie matter. and
any action had beyond the express CON-
:narl Of the Supreme Court would be w
warranted and Of no eject.
lam of opinion that the reception by his
ccur: 81 any evidence in regard 70 the sup
elemental petition III question. whether il
has or has not the character aecribed TO il
w Tue tt ltEtCLt COUl.-tI Ncu.l .lGl.st"E1
the authority conferred Gy tie mandate
referred.
Fer ::.ese reasons !e: :io exc: ptoa be
maintained.
Fifth District Court.
Exc ,vernor II. c. Warmoth ". Ms.
\ ice x rg, proplietress. ana N. +. Blgney.
editor ~ tie New Orleans Times Sl!. :or
libel. Tie plaintiff alledges that the de-
Pendants are nropriet-tss and editor ct a
newspaper called The New Orleans Tines.
which claims 20 have The iarges. daily cir
cuiation Of AIRY paper IN the SoUrEwes:.'
That IN III. edition OF said paper # nine.
:eeHth of May there appeared AZ article N
regard 20 the Mexican Gl!i canal. under
the caption "A IA: Take which is false.
malicious and libeiious. - relates 10 the
petitioner. Tina: the intent, plrrose and
C:iecr o: SAID article was 70 convey 20 the
mind o: he reader the :..ea ard tact .ia.
petitioner. while a pubic officer. had cor
rupt connection Or transaction with me
corporation referred to that there existed
a large Indebtedness OF said company 10 De.
t!IiJLer. the consideration nf which vas
some official &c: Done by petitioner in be-
halt OF said company, ana that petit
t!tioner had used the powers and
authority OF his office az Governor 20 ag-
grandiZe himself and promote his personal
fortune: that his Only relation to said com
panv is that of al unfortunate creditor who
had loaned money in aid o1 tue work, and
that petitioner wrote letter 10 Mr.. Bigney
demanding retraction OF the statements
in regard 10 himself. an! that no response
was made. bat, on the contrary. OF the day
following. May 20. gre Times newspaper
contained an article repeating in an agra
waited form The original SANDERS. Hence
his action for So. 900 damages.
Petition fled and Citations issued.
john }. Murphy VS.. Mrs. Alice h.rg. rro
prieror Of the New Orleans T.nts.-T:.is IL
a emit for secs - Tor paper, type. presses
ana ether printing material furnished. 20
the New Orleans Times in iS.l az. IL De-
tobec and November. 49,. Petitioner a.
leges thai at TIE time he '!tnts were con
trac:ed Mrs. King was :. par proprietor #
the paper: that The deb, has been ackuOw!
edged by Mr.. Henry Green. lis business
manager. and tL.c il The sale 81 the entire
interest If said paper 20 the lie ieIdact. she
became liable FOR all OF Us L. Us, of wh.ch
this is one. Petition filed ana citations
issued.
j. +. Daily vs.. Schonhaussr X Duffy
John A. Tourneile. as security. through
counsel. submitted the case On .rie 20 show
ca use why the bond should ne. he vacated.
security released and the property held
{: 5000 should no: be suffice. 70 ne Wit q;
seqIestration previously issued.
j. p. Ga:vey VS. Price. une & Turpe.:
Rober. Carey & CO. vs.. Price. HiLe q
Tupper.-These are Two sEits for The
balance of a large quantity Q! sugar and
lEo!asses seGHestered by Cete D.aE:s. Cases
:Ti,iui-tel Tor argument,