New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-01-19

as proper party, applies to its judicial Off
| GERS for aid in maintaining the constitution
and in enforcing the laws, will the courts
drive the applicant away because there
happens to be no dollars and cents involved
| in the casef This question has been often
eonside red by this court and by other
| courts in this country. The Supreme Court
| of the United States, in the case OF Samuel
| Lee and Barbara Lee, plaintiffs IN error,
| against Elizabeth Lee, reported in Peters
Reports, page As, had occasion to consider
| whether it would entertain suit similar
| TO the one now at bar, so far as the question
| of moneyed interest ia concerned. 1t was a
suit brought by slave for her liberty.
| Tho court said:
| "On the part OF defendant in error q
! preliminary objection has been made TO the
| jurisdiction of this court, growing out OF
| the act of Congress of the second of April,
| 1916, which declares that no cause shall be
| removed from the Circuit Court for the
| District of Columbia to the Supreme Court
| by appeal or writ OF error unless the mat
ter in dispute shall be of the value of $1,000
or upwards. The matter of dispute in this
case is the freedom of the petitioners. The
| Judgment of the court below is against
| their claim to freedom. The matter in dis
| pute is, therefore, to the plaintiff in error
the value of their freedom and this ia not
susceptible of q pecuniary valuation"
| anu So ! Bay sO-U2y, may IL pledse inc
| court, that the integrity of she constitution,
| that the necessity of enforcing the laws OF
| this State ID not susceptible OF peeuniary
| valuations, and that when abe State applies
| to its courts for aid to enforce its laws, the
| courts will not turn the State away because
| there does not appear upon the face of the
| petition or IN the record which may be
brought TO the Superior Court na0neyed
| valuation. In the case of Rowley VS.. Row
| aau 10 IaOuIGiann 61S HaninaH nv this pnnrt
| it being suit for separation from bed and
| board the jurisdiction Of this court being
| then limited to suits involving the sum of
| three hundred dollars, the court said that
| while it could not estimate the demand in
| dollars and cents, yet it would maintain it's
| jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction was main
4 tanned and the suit finally determined by
| this tribunal. So in the controversy rela-
| tive to the Office of Mayor and Councilmen
of the late City of Jefferson. In the case
| of Kreider there was q moneyed interest
| apparent, because the Mayor of the city
| received @ salary, and your honOrs pro-
! ceeded to determine the issue but there
was another case decided at the same time
| and not reported-the case of Shropshire,
| asking to be maintained as member of the
| Council Of the City of Jefferson. There
! was no mOneyed interest involved in ths
| case, and yet your honors proceeded for the
| reasons assigned in the case of krelder to
determine the ShroI shire ease.
But if your honOrs should conclude, may
it please the court, that the interest of the
State, the real party plaintiff, is not such as
to give the court jurisdiction tbut can not
believe that your honOrs will come to such
| a conclusiOn), yet there liz an interest on the
part of the persons joined with the State in
this action. 1 have an affidavit which I
intended to have presented to the court this
morning, but which will ask permission
to file tomorrow, as have left it in my
office. it is the affidavit of member of
this returning board joined with the State
as plaintiff, in which he swears that he has
an interest far exceeding $1,000 in the de-
termination of this controversy. That in
terest appears from the fact that the year
previous the Legislature made an appropri-
alton to pay these gentlemen acting as re-
turning officers for their services in the
interest of tue State, and IL is to be pre-
sumed that these gentlemen, for whatever
time they may have expended in the SER
vice of the State, will be paid by the Leg
islature, as was done previously. AZ all
events, here is an affidavit sworn state
ment, that the gentleman has Gn interest
beyond the sum of $1,000.
But the learned gentleman insisted in
his argument that the Attorney General,
Mr.. Field, who has interviewed in these pro-
ceedings, and has appealed the case to this
court, has no interest in the matter. OF has
not such an interest as will justify your
honOrs in assuming Jurisdiction He swears,
may it please the court, that he has an inte-
rest exceeding $500. That interest appears,
if the court please, from the fact that the
returns of the returning board, when made,
are primd facie evidence of the right of the
person in whose favor they may run TO pos
sess the office to which he may have been
returned and so, if the board that was ap-
pointed subsequent to the injunction issued
IN this case should Proceed to return the
opponent OF my client as the Attorney
General, and if that board should be recog-
nized as the legal returning board, hlr. Og
den would be entitled to occupy the office
of Attorney General, and my client would
be forced to bring an action for the purpose
OF maintaining his rights; and, under that
law, if the other board should be recognized,
and Mr. Ogden should be returned as elect
ed, your honOrs would be obliged to Tecog-
nize him, and, as l say, Mr. Field would be
compelled to institute suit TO recover his
Office. The expense of the institution of
suit, and the loss Of salary incidental to
his temporary removal is clearly beyond
$500, and the court has jurisdiction.
But there is another point in this question
of interest. 1t was suggested by member
of the court during the first day of this ar
gument. COnceding that Mr.. Field has an
interest exceeding $500, can he appeal the
case if the court should conclude that the
controversy, as between the plaintiffs and
defendants in the lower court, was not of
such a character as to justify this court in
maintaining the appeal as between themi
| answer, yes. 1 answer that although this
suit between the plaintiffs and the de.
PENDANTS, is for less than $500; if the result
of the decision is calculated to injure a
third person to an extent amounting to q
sum exceeding $500, that third person NAV
intervene in the case and appeal it.
although neither the plaintiffs nor the de-.
PENDANTS could take the case up That is
the decision of the court in the case of the
State against the judge of the Seventh Ju-
diciai District Court, reported in u Az. %
] read from the syllabus:
"Where property is seized under execu-
ton, and the sale is euioined by third per.
son claiming to be the owner, it is the value
of the property under seizure. and not the
amount for which the writ issued which de.
termines the right of appeal
1t was case in which the plaintiff sued
for less than $500.
Justice Wyly-Was not the appeal in that
case brought up from the Judgment in the
injunction suitf
Judge Dibble-f take i. that the fpir1uc.
ton suit was third opposition and inter.
ventiOn in the case Such is the practice.
A person whose property is seized in this
way files third opposition and obtains |
judgment in the matter. as between the |
plaintiff and the defendant. That was the |
decision in the case cited by my associate in
Is An. and the one in |! An.
But, may it please the court, think that !
this ease is appealable without any regard to |
the question suggested by his Honor Jus |
tee WHY. The ease is appeaiaJ!e as be. |
tween the State Of Louisiana ana the per. |
sons made respondents in this proceeding |
under the intrusion in Office act. and M. |
Fields interest being apparent. as think, |
the case could certainly be brought up by |
l. - L. =