New Orleans Republican., 1873-03-11

| isb of Fast Feiciana. Jsdgmept rey.,,ted ed
Joaenb Hernandez o. ole ra CbarIe.
| Clinton. Auditor. P Field. Attorney
| General appeared in behaIf of the State
| and moved to dismiss the Injunction granted
in This case Plaintiff is ordered to show
| cause to-day.
Y. c. HOugh VS.. New Orleans and Car
| rollton Railroad Comuanv-TLe motion tor
| a new trial was overrnled
Kendig d Co. VS. CITY of New Orleans
| The petitioners file a petition asking an in
| iuction against the CITY of New Orleans in
| general and b. NJ Turnbull, Administrator
| Of Commerce. and Z. X. Chevallev. super
| intendent of wbarves, in particular, Ell
| Joining them from building or causing to
| be built anv wharf or wharves at the canal
! boat landing N the Second District Of this
| city, or otherwise in any way interfering
| with the coal barges Of petitioners.
| Collins & Tabor VS. CITY Of New Orleans.
| Plaintiffs sue to recover the sum of $3.50
the amount of an appropriation for
| printing voted them kv the Council of the
| late City OF Jefferson, which the city Of New
| Orleans refuses TO pay, although the said
| CITY has assumed the debts and liabilities of
! the late corporation Of Jefferson.
Thomas Y. Durbin VS.. Board of Metro
| prItan POlice.-Ihis is a suit instituted by
| plaintiff. a discharged police officer, to re-
| cover pay since his dismissal from the force
! Dv the Board of Commissioners
! U.,,, n; 49,,
|
! me lVIto"Ihg interesting ueCisIon was
| fehH6Ieu py Ja9ge LJ hch yesterday:
- ~ Dieylu7 -ilnG Vs. ChflsIlah idoholo -
- nIs ~ rue NY me pIaiutlh requlr
! ing lhe aeAehoahts 10 snow cause why GER
1alL Fstinohv taken neIore the consul gen
Ti ia 81 VI t9e chlteu otateS III me Guy VI
diiT' unuet II colillnleslon lroni thlS couil,
sn"1ld h"t oe used as evidence al the tflal
| OF Jhis cause.
| Couneel ior the delehdahts ailege seNeraI
| grouhGs Why 'he evidence shoula hot De ao
| mltteo. FT7l-lnaO the certIhcale ol lhe
consul ID ueltctiNe anu ihSulliGlelI, ds II uoes
| hoC sue" IndU Ihe wlVhosS Whooo IeS'iilony y
was taken was produced before said consul el
| or was swGFh ana examiner oy thaI elIlcer'
Second-Ihat the testlhony was not re-
uuceu 10 "IIinS py tno cohS"l hlIIsoiI' Ino
same belng eVldenqy written IN hanG r dlS-
| siplllar 10 that OF tue consul; Inlrc-Iha
| the testimony was TAKEN III the Frehcn ian
| guage' against d reg inea VI drClcle
| OF the coIsutullon OF 1910, "hich requires
| al Jndlciai pToceeuluSs u DC cafr!eo op IN
| lhe EnSlish language Fourth-ihaI tne
evidence is not su1hclehty authehtlca
as the lurat is not III the Wlitlng OF the con-
SUI, oelng Only signed by NM
Inc capIloh OF description OF the Ies'lc
| mony reaus as lollO"s' Deposluon OF
witness producGd, sworn ana examined the
| eighth DAY OF January A. D., 1913, at the
city OF Pans II the republic OF france, un-
der ana Dy virtue G1 commission issued
out OF the fourth Dlstrlct Court LOT the
paIlsh OF orleans, State OF Louisiana, IN a
certain cause tnereln depending ana at IS
sue between n. Dreytus Alne, plantih, and
| Christian Honold d Co, deiendants
lhe foregoing paragraph, 1t is true, does
not state that the witness was produced
before SAID consul, or that he was sworn
ana eXamlued 10y that oflcer' or before any
particular person. subsequently, however,
we nnd the statement 1naC Jonathan
Drey1us, known as Nestor Dreyfus, OF the
city OF farls' III the repuDnc OF france,
aged sxty-tW0. Years and upwards, being
duly and puollcly sworn, pursuant TO the
direction Lereto annexed, anu examined
on the part OF the defendant, doth depose
and say. etc.
Here there is declaration OF the consul
general thaI the witness was uuly ana
publicly sworn and examined pursuant to
TIE direction hereto annexed W hat Is
meant oy the olrectlon hereto annexed
Inc direction gwen III the commission, OF
course, Nhat dld the commission author
lZe anu INSTRUCT Vhe Gohsul 10 40 10 cause
tne witness 10 come pelore nilh az certain
Tune ana pace ana then ana there the
ness apart upon MS corporal oaLn, ana re-
duce the examination o1 tne witness TO
WrltIbg' anu 20 cause nun 10 sign the same
Az IhiS was uone ny inc consul "hen ne
du y ana puoHciy s"ore ana examined
lhe witness pursuant 10 the aifecuon mere
10 annexed l. e. the orecIlon IN tne com
mlsslon' 80
again the consul certlnes that the ex-
| dminduoh was 'ahe1, reuuctu 10 NrlshS
ana oy Ihe witness suosGrloed ana sworn TO.
EVen II tDe consul had 1aIled 10 disclose
| al tnaI was uohe uhuer Ihe commission,
Would De Donnd TO presume, IN the alb
sence OF PROOF TO the contrary, that the con
| sui, III actlng under LIS commission, has
done his duty.
Was the consul required to take down in
MS own proper handwrlt1g the answers of
the witness TO the lntedogatones to him
propounded! think nc The commission
directed the consul to ~ ,duee the examina-
ton to writing" ande this he could do
through a secretary or clerk acting as his
amanuensls. The testimony was required
to be taken before hlm, but the commission
dId not impose on MN the manual labor of
w1ltlng WIN his own hand the evidence In
question: Inc duties OF the consul general
are muIllarlous. lie Is required, IN addl-
ton to his duties strictly consular, to exc
cute various other commissions similar to
the present one issued TO hlm from Ameri-
can courts. IL is not III consOnance with
his rank or position to be made the instru-
ment OF performing all the mechanical
laoor involved IN writing the deposltlons in
cases OF ,hls klnd' even IL ne bad sufflclent
tline 10 GeVoIe TO sucn WORK, alter attend
I" me other duties OF hls Office:
Is ID wei founded cause Tor excluding
the evidence that II was taken and is writ
yen yen IN .I tne rFencn language! see moth
ing IN Ihe commission alrtctlng the testlmo-
| hH 70 20 tahen IN hngIlsh only no pro-
hlpltloh ol itS oelng "ilttGn IN the naive