New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-03-30
THE COURTS.
United States Circuit Court.

United States Circuit Court
United States vs. Z. NJ. Bouligny ct ais
Application for a new trial liked LOT near
ing on the eighth of April: .a4o
c. F. VOORHEES, VS.. w; n. Johnson. tes Sa
mentary acknowledgements as@1n'' uo
PENDANT by default
United States District Court.
Good Intent Towboat Company VS..
Steamship Juniata-In this case Judgment
was rendered in favor of plalntlh LOT
$50 OeO: also, against defendant and In favor
of John : Parteidt, master, and the stean-
er. for value OF personal effects lost, SIoo.
The Philadelphia and Southern steamship
Company, claimants and owners, Oy L.
Hoxie, as principal, and Z. Schneider, n
Zuberber and F. A. Yorke as suretles OF 'ne
release bond are condemned IN se!iuo 10
paw said Judgment with interest ana cosIs
j. w. Ramsey ct al. VS.. ship John Parker
and cargo.-An parties in interest are or
dered to show cause on Monday why the
property seized in the above entitled sun
should not be sold.
T. Morris Chester was introduced by Mr..
Billings, and upon taking the required oath
was admitted te practice IN the United
States courts
Supreme Court.
This tribunal adjourned yesterday until
Monday, April 7, when decisions will be
rendered and cases called and fixed for the
week, commencing Monday, April u.
Subsequent TO April there VIII be but
one more calling OF cases prior TO adjourn
ment in May.
Superior District Court.
William O'Neill files a petition setting
forth that in May, 1872, he tell at the corner
of Magazine and Canal streets and broke
bis leg, by reason of piece of tagging on
which he stepped clipping from its position;
he therefore asks that the city be ordered
to pay him damages 10 the amount Of
$4,000.
Gardner P. Houghton has filed in this
court petition setting forth that he was,
on the twentieth day of May, 1872, APP
pointed by the Governor OF the State re-
oerder of the First District of this city; that
he was subsequently-on the twenty-fourth
of September, in the same year-elected by
the Council of the city of New Orleans to
the same office, both appointments to hold
for the term commencing on the fourth day
of April, 1872, and for two years thereafter.
He now AYERS that one Michael Gernon.
without authority in law, is preparing,
conniving and conspiring with divers per-
sons to petitioner unknown, to deprive Pc
titioner by force and violence, without
legal process, Of his said office, and install
himself therein. he, the said Gernon. hav-
ing already made one attempt to interrupt
petitioner in the performance OF his duties
and the administration of his judicia. func-
tons. He, therefore, prays tor writ OF
injunction restraining said Michael Gernon
from further interference with him il the
possession of his office.
The requisite order was Issued by Judge
Hawkins.
Fourth District Court.
Judge Lynch rendered tho following
decisions yesterday:
George II. Seibel VS.. ". c. Zeigier-This
i a rule taken by defendants counsel to
set aside the injunction herein, On three
different grounds, one of which is the al
legged insufficiency and insolvency of the
security on the injunction bond. The
counsel argues " that the security, Henry
c. Bull, is a man Of straw. from whom not
one cent could be made" This has not
been sufficiently proven by the evidence Of
Bull himself-the only witness examined
on that point. But suppose he is a man of
straw, he would not seem to be out of place
in an action like this. From the very be-
ginning OF the suit institute d in the Seventh
District Court by the defendant in this
suit, the proceedings seem to be strawy
and farcical Her petition appears strawy,
and it's allegations improbable; the answer
of the husband was straw answer; the
proof was OF straw, consisting as it did of
due BILL marriage certificate and the
answer OF the husband. The Judgment, if
not of strawy texture, stood on straWy
foundation: and the steps taken by each of
the parties since the filing Of said action
were taken over q swath OF straw resting
on surface tinged with the hue of simu-
latiou.
The other grounds relied on for the dis
solution of the injunction. taken in CON
nection with the disclosures Of the record,
ara untenable and inadequate
Those spOuses are now before this court
invoking its action against each other.
They must remain in court until their acts
are examined and thoroughly siited. and it
be ascertained whether or not their suit
No. g, 154, brought hither from the Seventh
District Court, was only intended TO be a
Joke as among themselves and an inviolable
preventative against the creditor from the
outer world. | can not see the prOprietv OF
dls5Olvlng the Injunction in this case The
court wants evidence, information and light,
which only trial on the merits can furnish
in volume and quality commensurate with
the sOmbre gravity into which this once ap-
parently innocent litigation has resolved it.
self A dissolution of the Injunction would
break the existing stQtU 9uo which keeps
the property in controversy from ChapOinC
owners until after the eye OF the law shall
have peeped behind the curtain of mystery
which now cOnceals the actions, the motives
and the rights of the plaintiff and defend
ant. Let, therefore, the rule be dismissed
j. Hamilton Rills VS.. Mr.. and Mrs. Mail
ian.--Ln this case S246 is claimed as attor-
ney's fees, being ten per cent on S21GO.
which was placed on tableau of distrihu,
ton as being due to Mrs MaillaD from tbe
succession of her father, Balthazar Dunuv
late of the parish of Iberyille. Mrs. Dnnmv
employed the plaintiff to look after her
fathers succession. Some three or fonr
letters passed backward and forth between
the parties. Rils, as atterpey, never wrote
line in the mOrtuary Proceedings of On
puy. His services consisted in urping the
administrator and attorney of the success
sion TO hurry up the settlement of the same.
Mrs. Dupuy received $1,000, all in notes and
coupons, two of which, of $500, reached her
through her uncle, the administrator. RilIs
neither collected, as he alleges, the sum of
$3.50, nor did he obtain a settlement and
hOmOlOgatiOn Of a tableau showing her in
terest. This was the work of Mr.. Lauve.
attorney of the succession. For the letters
written to Mrs. Maillan, and the INQUIRIES
made IN her behalf by the plaintiff the de-
mand herein IS excessive. He did not col
lect any money, and Tor the services he rem
dered five per cent on the amount of Mrs.
Malllan's interest in the succession. I con
slder q full need of compensation. This
would be $l23, Tor which let plaintiff have
Judgment.
Fifth District Court,
Joseph Henry Hopkins and Charles Al
phonse Wuescher have filed suits in this
court against Garthwaite. Lewis &, MIL
Ter, commercial firm doing business in