New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-11-27

| VI uhuer ulHerent ones is 1mmater1al. The
same work was to be done, and the bonds
claimed were to be. applied to the payment
| OF II; 1t was done under the same act and
the board OF engineers may or may not have
| nad the power to give them an extension
| but the parties themselves would not have
| appiled Tor that extension had they not con.
sldered that the matter had lapsed. The
| WORK done under that extension was allowed
by the board of engineers.
| Ihe question as to whether il has been
| done or not, or whether anything has been
done for the benefit OF the public. is not
before the court. Whatever was done. or
Claimed to have been done. was done alter
| the extension, by different parties from
| tlose who originally contracted with the
| State. and they did it unde! what they
| claimed TO be an extension or recognition.
Eagar Ellerman " Co claim to have done
| II under recognition procured under eero
titcate OF the civil engineer OF the State.
and that they had complied with the
| conditions of the original contract. But
for all purposes of considering the ob.
llgations of the State, it must be consid
cred as having been commenced and ended
after the constitutional limitation was
adopted, and, therefore, the limitation of
the State debt as adopted is conclusive of
the right to recover. Ii these bonds had
| issued they would have been void under
thul plpNlSlOu VI INC constitution WHICH
prohibited their issue; and they could not
have been legally issued. whatever may
have been the views of the Governor or
Auditor. The question can only be deter
mined when it is finally passed on by the
judicial authorities. The Governor or Au.
ditor can not determine that question.
There is another question presents itself
here in this connection. and that is Until
the bonds have passed into the hands OF
nff,oor nf ba Stat tbay
have not been issued; the court is bound
to consider these bonds as having no exist
eHce, although it is alleged they are in the
hands of the Auditor. They may be there
now. or in the hands of the Governor or
any other party; they are not in the hands
OF the claimant and that is all that is
known.
Judge Thomas, counsel for Eager. Eller-
man q Co., stated to the court that the
bonds were in the custody of the Auditor
by law.
Judge Hawkins-If they are there by
law, that is where they are. If the law
places them in the custody Of the Auditor
they are there. but not being out of his pos
session they are in the custody of the State
in the place assigned tor their custody by
law, and they have not been issued, and
the court can presume nothing about
whether they have been signed or not. The
application amounts to this, that you are
asking the court to direct their issue
Tie application for a mandamus is refused
in both cases.
First District Courre
NoLLE PRosEQUI ENTERED
The district attorney has entered Ho11e
proseIui in the cases of the following paro
ties charged with larceny and smbezzlee
ment: Charles Ducroso Fred DAVIS. An
drew Muller. alias Israel. Jennie Moran.
Sanders Bell. Robert Dowdery. J. W. Hen
;reWo
TRUE BILE.
The grand jury presented an fndictmen.
against Dan Eagan and joi.u Donovan. Cor
robbery
State v.. Henry johnson. - Larceny.
Guilty.
State IS. James Foiey.-Larceny. NO:
guilty.
State 80. Laura Harris--Murier. Guilty
OF manslaughteI with a recommendation OF
mercy.
State vs.. Louis Wilis.-Iareenyo Guilty.
SENTENCED.
State vs. Thomas Gorder.--Assauit and
battery. Plea of guilty OF assault. One
hous id Che Parish Prison.
Second District Courts
The successions of Werner Kick. L.
Marian Hyde, Jean B. Lemre. Norbert |
Larocheile, Mary Louisa GhaiIle and MRS. !
Hall have been opened