New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-12-20
COURT RECORD,
FRIDAY, DECEMBER le. 1872.

OF the constitution of the United States
! anu may be exercised to an unlimited
extent, except SO tar az surrendered to the
federal government. Before the adoption
OF the constitution the States possessed
tnese powers except SO far as limited by
| treaties. The constitution contains no ex
press restriction of these powers, except az
to duties on tonnage and imports. Wall,
| IL. 1t Is power concurrent with the gen.
eral government. absolute except when
| tnere IS tax on the same subject by both
| governments, in which case the supreme is
to be preferred. The extent to which it is
to be exercised is within the discretion OF
! the Legislature, limited by the State con-
| stitution.
The tax in question is not too remote in
| Its effects upon the efficient exercise of the
federal power to be for that reason inhibit-
ed by the constitution; to hold otherwise
| would be to deny to the States all power to
tax persons or property, for every tax levied
| by State withdraws from the reach OF
| federal taxation portion Of the property
| from which it is taken, and to that extent
taxes may be laid. The company Is an
agent of the general government, but it does
not follow that it is exempt from taxation.
Thompson vs.. U. p. X. r. Co., 9 Wall, 579
1t may be considered settled that no cOnsti
tutiOnal implications prohibit State tax
upon the property OF an agent of the govern
ment merely because it is the property of
such an agent. Railroads, tcle graph lines
and other properly are employed by the
as here claimed, it lie manifest that the State
governments would be paralyzed. The de-
cree below is affirmed.
Swayne, j. read cOncurring opinion.
Bradley, j., dissenting Hunt, j., with
him), read an opinion claiming that if the
road bed may be taxed it may be seized
and sold tor nOnpaymeDt of taxes, seized
county or State lines, and thus the whole
purpose of Congress in creating the cor
poration and establishing the line may be
subverted and destroyed. He considered
the tax unconstitutional.
Superior District Court.
State OK rel. C. w. Patton w. City of New
Orleans and James Smith, keeper of Work
house.-Application for an I'M un elton
against and damages for keeping prisoners
in the WOrkhouse instead Of the Parish
Prison. Suit dismissed with judgment in
favor Of the city.
First District 0oura
INFORMATIoNs PILED.
Assault and battery-M. flanagan, Jean
BonhOmme.
ARRAIGNED.
Peter Lynn and Ernest Stewart.-Assault
with intent to rob. Plea Of guilty of as
sault
State VS. Charles Miller.-First, robbery
Second, larceny. Third, obtaining money
and goods under false pretenses.
SENTENCED.
State VS. Jim Smith.-Carrying concealed
weapons; 500 fine and costs of prosecution,
with three months in the Parish Prison.
ON TRIAL.
State vs. Norman Whitney.-Arson.
Fourth District Court.
Judge Lynch has rendered the following
decisions:
John Smoker ct ais. VS.. T. p. Leathers.--
Plaintiffs contracted with defendant to COM
mand and run the Governor Allen, in the
Vicksburg trade. He made two trips and
then transferred his crew to the Belle Lee
1t was not partnership, although the de-
PENDANT was to receive one-fourth Of the
profits. The opinion concludes as follows:
We find Leathers in command OF the
Governor Allen under an unconditional
contract with the plaintiffs, but while
making the second trip, he deserts the
Governor Allen, and carries to the Belle
Lee the orders and engagements which
faith of defendants engagement the Allen
was placed on the line. He went over to a
competitor, and compelled the Allen to give
up the day and the trade. 1t is clear to my
mind that the action of Captain Leathers
in this regard was breach of his contract
with the plaintiffs.
Did the breach of contract aforesaid
cause injury or damage to the plaintiffs?
Ii it did, to what amount, and was any
reparation made by Leathers previous to
the institution of this suit!
The plaintiffs can not recover unless they
show that they suffered actual loss from
Leathers' departure or withdrawal from the
Allen. This is not a case in which eXem-
plary damages can be claimed.
The plaintiffs, In their argument of the
case, have abandoned their claim for loss of
profits accruing during the period of Leath-
ers' engagement, the proof showing that
the boat went elsewhere and made profits.
They persist only in claiming the losses
that they cay followed directly from the
desertion of the Allen by Leathers, and his
command Of rival boat in the same trade.
1t is in evidence that the Governor Allen
lost over $1,000 during two tri ps which she
made under the command and direction of
Captain Leathers. 1t is not shown that
during that time the Allen as not managed
to the best advantage by her popular and
able commander. Those two trips were
made during the month of November, one
of the most profitable months of the year
for boats in the cotton trade. The wages of
deck hand was at that time only $35 per
month, though subsequently as high as 500
per month. Under the most favorable cir
cumstances the Governor Allen lost in two
trips $l662 AZ, and there is no evidence
to show that she was likely to do better for
the remainder of the term of the contract.
Captain feathers, in putting an end to his
appears to have escaped a
ruinous sacrifice, which no business man
could bear for long time. The continue
ton Of the running of the Allen would also
have been great loss to the plaintiffs. who
wero losing their money very freely by the
enterprise. After the experiment of the
loss to the plaintiffs by the trips of the Al
len under feathers, it is difficult to see why
the plaintiffs should endeavor to compel
Leathers to continue in business which
had entailed. and was likely to continue to
entail, great loss OF the parties mutually.
i see nothing in the evidence to show that
the loss in the first two trips of the Allen is
to be attributed to Captain lie ,thers. This
narrows down The question of alleged loss |
to that which occurred during the one week
that the Allen. under the command of Cap |
tain Sinnott, ran against the Belle Lee. 1t |
is shown that the Allen lost $1,000 on Sin |
motifs trip, and it is alleged that this loss |
was caused in great part by Captain |
Leathers' sending for the letters and bills |
of lading which the Allen had brought down,
as shown by the orders of Captain feathers. |
The owners of the Allen had no property |
in the letters or bills of lading brought |
down for delivery, but were bound to de-
liver the letters to the parties to whom they |
were addressed and the bills of lading to
the cousi.nees. in order that they might re
peive the freight brought down for delivery.
If Captain feathers took orders for return
cargo to be forwarded from New Orleans
by the Allen, and had the merchandise or
iered forwarded by the Belle Lee, he would